Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery size constraints
"Curtis L. Olson" wrote: > Martin Spott wrote: >>Hello Curt, thanks for your resume ! > Oops, did I misclick with this stupid laptop touch pad and attach my > resume by mistake? :-)) No, you didn't, I was just echoing the funny habit of a British colleague in the way he translates the French word 'resumee'. Thank you for the explanation, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery size constraints
Martin Spott wrote: Hello Curt, thanks for your resume ! Oops, did I misclick with this stupid laptop touch pad and attach my resume by mistake? That sounds interesting, but it's not completely clear to me what they acutally did to achieve this ;-) Did they create an interface within their own simulation that connects to stock FlightGear, did they extend FlightGear with their specific interface (source code available ?), did they modify the existing FlightGear interface to match their needs ? They use FlightGear's existing netfdm and netctrls structures (they support both v0.9.3 and v0.9.8 versions) within their own code. This way you can connect up to a stock version of FlightGear with minimal messing around. They had a neat demo of a lifting body vehicle returning from space on final approach to KSFO. The dynamics and control was all done in simulink with the aerospace blockset and flightgear was used to visualize the flight in real time. They setup a simple model of the vehicle with animated control surfaces ... they exaggerated the actual movements and painted the underside of the surfaces orange so you could see when they deployed or moved. http://www.mathworks.com/cmsimages/ae_flsimulator_wl_10579.jpg It was a really nifty little demo. And a second question, please: Does their "Aerospace Blocks" have any relation the "AeroSim Blockset" by U-Dynamics as presented on these pages: http://www.u-dynamics.com/aerosim/ No, the u-dynamics stuff is completely independent. I believe it's similar in scope and purpose, but the Mathworks version is integrated directly into their current aerospace blockset release (available for download (to customers) starting yesterday.) It's not a cheap product but for those that have it, FlightGear adds a *lot* of functionality to what they can do with it. In addition, the Mathworks stuff supports version 0.9.3 and 0.9.8 (current version) where as the u-dynamics stuff only supports v0.7.9 and v0.9.2 last I checked. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery size constraints
Hello Curt, thanks for your resume ! "Curtis L. Olson" wrote: > I just got back from a Mathworks matlab/simulink symposium in LA this > week. (Thank you John, Alex, and Trisha for all your efforts! And I > have to thank Mathworks who went all out to help us get John's 747 sim > down to the show and make it a success.) Mathworks has a neat tool > (simulink + aero blockset) where you can assemble a flight dynamics > model and all the real time flight controls (i.e. fly by wire stuff) in > a graphical format. They have created a direct interface to FlightGear > so the modeler can click a button, run the simulink simulation in "real > time" and see a "real time" visualization of their aircraft in > FlightGear with animated control surfaces and gauges if they want to set > that up in FG. That sounds interesting, but it's not completely clear to me what they acutally did to achieve this ;-) Did they create an interface within their own simulation that connects to stock FlightGear, did they extend FlightGear with their specific interface (source code available ?), did they modify the existing FlightGear interface to match their needs ? And a second question, please: Does their "Aerospace Blocks" have any relation the "AeroSim Blockset" by U-Dynamics as presented on these pages: http://www.u-dynamics.com/aerosim/ Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery size constraints
> directly. We aren't trying to eventually replace JSBsim with a > proprietary flight dynamics model here so please, I don't want anyone to > worry. :-) Jon :-) My main goal for attending this show > was to show the flexibility and adaptability of FlightGear as an > engineering and rapid prototyping tool. I think FlightGear will have a > big future in that area. At $1900 for a commercial license for Matlab (only Matlab - not simulink) it's no surprise that some are bypassing Matlab. It's obviously a great tool with a well-established history, but there are some alternatives in the Open Source world (SciLab/SciCos, IIRC). Also, I'm working on JSBSim Commander, which will make using JSBSim with flight controls development a little more fun, if not useful and practical for broader uses. I think it's great that FlightGear is getting so much attention from commercial partnerships. It helps/benefits us all. JSBSim has lately been adding 2 or 3 people per week to the mailing list, so that's encouraging. The newsletter also publishes the new and innovative ways that JSBSim is being used in industry. There's a place for everyone ... Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery size constraints
Melchior FRANZ wrote: I'm sure he meant "boeing.com" (hey, Stacie was first!). Now with Boeing and Sikorsky on board, where is EADS/Airbus? Come on! We know you are here! And Fokker!? And *cough* Diamond *cough* ... ;-) I get the sense (from little bits and pieces I've gleaned over time) that there are a lot more big name companies using FlightGear that we are generally aware of. A lot of these companies are using FlightGear as a visualization or engineering tool in conjunction with various high power dynamics and controls modeling software. Many of these companies are "competition" sensitive so they don't necessarily advertise exactly who they are and exactly what they are doing. Often they are just using FG as an off the shelf tool. I suspect that FlightGear's use as an engineering tool within universities and industry will continue to grow over time as more and more people discover it (and as FlightGear's capabilities increase.) I just got back from a Mathworks matlab/simulink symposium in LA this week. (Thank you John, Alex, and Trisha for all your efforts! And I have to thank Mathworks who went all out to help us get John's 747 sim down to the show and make it a success.) Mathworks has a neat tool (simulink + aero blockset) where you can assemble a flight dynamics model and all the real time flight controls (i.e. fly by wire stuff) in a graphical format. They have created a direct interface to FlightGear so the modeler can click a button, run the simulink simulation in "real time" and see a "real time" visualization of their aircraft in FlightGear with animated control surfaces and gauges if they want to set that up in FG. Mathworks has customers (plural) :-) requesting a direct interface to FlightGear which is why they implimented an interface in the latest release of their aero blockset (available yesterday) and invited me and John Wojnaroski to come be a part of their show. John brought his 747 sim along and it was (predictably) :-) one of the bigger hits there. This is probably 2nd or 3rd hand, but I hear that the unofficial ratio of FlightGear interface requests to X-Plane interface requests is about 5-1 which is why mathworks built the FlightGear interface first. That's music to my ears. :-) Oh, and let me tack on one extra thought here at the end. Not everyone there at the show was a big simulink aero block set fan, so I suspect that many people are using JSBsim or one of the other FG fdm's directly. We aren't trying to eventually replace JSBsim with a proprietary flight dynamics model here so please, I don't want anyone to worry. :-) Jon :-) My main goal for attending this show was to show the flexibility and adaptability of FlightGear as an engineering and rapid prototyping tool. I think FlightGear will have a big future in that area. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Scenery size constraints
Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Alberico, James F -- Thursday 26 May 2005 16:42: You certainly mean Harald, not me, unless you are commenting on the ugly format of my name here. :-) I'm sure he meant "boeing.com" (hey, Stacie was first!). Now with Boeing and Yep. Sikorsky on board, where is EADS/Airbus? Come on! We know you are here! And Fokker!? And *cough* Diamond *cough* ... ;-) Fokker? I'm working on that. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
