RE: [Flightgear-devel] b-29 alpha
> On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 17:36, Erik Hofman wrote: > > > > Yes, the C172p. At least and the F-104, F-15 and F-16 are based on > > windtunnel data. The T-37 is partially based on flight test data. > > And Both the Fokker 70/100 and Fokker 50 use available data where possible. > > > > None of them are extensively validated though (although I do trust the > > windtunnel and test-flight data). > > > > Now, maybe I was trolling a bit when I started this, but replies like > this (and Curt Olson's) make it seem quite worthwhile! > > I'd never been able to find any claims on accuracy of FlightGear's FDMs; > not from the FG website, the FAQs nor trawling the devel-list archives. > And yet, here it is! > > Surely someone ought at least to mention this level of FDM fidelity on > the FAQ? It could only help increase FG's street-cred. Hi, Steve: Building an acceptable flight model is not too terribly hard if you stick to it. Building a really good, high fidelity model is also not too hard if you have the right data on hand or know how to derive it. The sim I work on in my day job takes fidelity to pretty extreme lengths: - modeling landing and rollout on a runway where the edges of the runway are modeled, various runway conditions are modeled, etc. - the aero tables are printed in two volumes, each about four inches thick. - the engineering sim I work on was used by others to "re-enact" the shuttle Columbia's last entry, and the results used to determine when the aero coefficients began to diverge from nominal. - etc. It's a very high fidelity space vehicle simulator. Andy is right about using aero coefficients from flight test data to model flight dynamics - you often can't get it (at least easily) and you have to know what you are doing, and what the test conditions were. Nevertheless, all military and space real-time simulators that I am aware of use the coefficient build-up technique to do flight modeling because it affords the best way to match actual flight dynamics. Now, with that said, I have tried for a couple of years to put together enough information to model a B-17G. I have not found any good aero data on that aircraft, although I am SURE it must exist somewhere (probably in Boeing's archives!). There are other ways to derive that information, and tools are being built to make that task MUCH easier and more accurate. Stay tuned. Check out the JSBSim newsletters on the JSBSim web site for more information on our approach (www.jsbsim.org). Jon -- Project Coordinator JSBSim Flight Dynamics Model http://www.jsbsim.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] b-29 alpha
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 17:36, Erik Hofman wrote: > Martin Spott wrote: > > > To my knowledge there _are_ aircraft in FlightGear that are build upon > > real data. Right ? > > Yes, the C172p. At least and the F-104, F-15 and F-16 are based on > windtunnel data. The T-37 is partially based on flight test data. > And Both the Fokker 70/100 and Fokker 50 use available data where possible. > > None of them are extensively validated though (although I do trust the > windtunnel and test-flight data). > Now, maybe I was trolling a bit when I started this, but replies like this (and Curt Olson's) make it seem quite worthwhile! I'd never been able to find any claims on accuracy of FlightGear's FDMs; not from the FG website, the FAQs nor trawling the devel-list archives. And yet, here it is! Surely someone ought at least to mention this level of FDM fidelity on the FAQ? It could only help increase FG's street-cred. It's been interesting watching Josh's comments during the B29 development cycle, seeing what he could get from published diagrams, and what he had to estimate. It will be even more interesting if/when he can coax some of the current pilots of restored B29s to have a go. Good luck, Josh. I suspect you'll need a force-feedback control column though or the real pilots will complain that they can't "feel" the aircraft. Steve. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] b-29 alpha
> From: Steve Hosgood > > FlightGear might well be a great means of keeping the historical flying > experience alive. The trouble is, >AFAIK That is right. You don't know. > *no* airplane currently modelled > in FlightGear has ever been verified against the original machine. > I'm *not* knocking what Josh has done here - nor of course anyone else's > efforts. FlightGear is great for all those people who (like me) cannot > afford to pilot real aircraft, or who just don't want to. However, we > can't ignore the fact that, good though it may be, FlightGear is > basically a video game. I think this guy is a troll. > > [ I take it, Josh, that I'm right in assuming that you've not flown a > real B29? Nor even put an accurate model of a B29 in a wind tunnel to > check how well the FDM is doing its stuff? ] > > That's not to be taken as a complaint, but if we don't make people aware > of this, then in 100 years time they'll be trying to re-enact battles of > WWII using your B29 model on "FlightGear 29.2.1 for HoloDeck" and > wondering why the bomber jocks of WWII claimed certain feats which they > can't duplicate in 2105. So they'll rewrite history books to reflect > what the HoloDeck simulation showed (the historical accounts obviously > being exaggerated!), and they'll be wrong. > > Just as we can tell that the ancient Egyptians had help from aliens in > building the pyramids, 'cos they "obviously couldn't have done it by > themselves". > And this proves it. Or maybe just a moron. What a useful contribution. How long did it take you to write that Steve? Best regards, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] b-29 alpha
Steve Hosgood wrote: On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 18:13, Josh Babcock wrote: Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:22:48 -0400, Josh wrote in message Be warned, racy but authentic nose art... ..cute. We need more of these, to remain authentic. ;o) Yeah, this is an excellent opportunity to spread some historical information... Well, I wasn't planning on claiming any great accuracy of the flight model, though I will try and make the appearance and systems as close as I can. It's actually not that complex of a plane, except for a few features like the gun targeting computer (yup, i said targeting computer) that won't be modeled anyway. And no, I haven't had the pleasure of flying a B-29 :) There are however those who still fly one (soon to be two), and at some point I will invite them to try this one out and give some input. I don't really expect to get any though. I was thinking more along the lines of providing a brief written synopsis of the history of the plane and the firebombing of Japan, which I think is a very underreported part of WWII history. Few people realize that Hiroshima was just barely the most deadly raid, and not even the most destructive. Nagasaki didn't even come in second in either category. In fact, it was Tokyo that lost the largest number of lives throuought the whole campiagn. It kind of puts all the fuss about displaying the 'Enola Gay' at the Smithsonian in perspective. There are some great histories out there and I have read several doing research for this project. I'd like to share some of what I have learned. Josh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] b-29 alpha
Andy Ross wrote: Steve Hosgood probed: However, we can't ignore the fact that, good though it may be, FlightGear is basically a video game. Don't feed the trolls, folks. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d But they're so cute when the beg for food! ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] b-29 alpha
Martin Spott wrote: To my knowledge there _are_ aircraft in FlightGear that are build upon real data. Right ? Yes, the C172p. At least and the F-104, F-15 and F-16 are based on windtunnel data. The T-37 is partially based on flight test data. And Both the Fokker 70/100 and Fokker 50 use available data where possible. None of them are extensively validated though (although I do thrust the windtunnel and test-flight data). Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] b-29 alpha
Steve Hogood wrote: > Some of the folk on this list are private pilots from what I see being > discussed. How well do those pilots reckon the simulated aircraft in > FlightGear mimic the real ones, given that the FDMs are (apparently) > empirically created from the aircraft's basic layout and physical > properties? That's true of YASim, but not JSBSim which can take real, measured data if you have it. The problem with real data, of course, is that in general it lies (or doesn't make sense in isolation -- same deal), and at best isn't available in all regimes, or at all. The kind of fidelity you are asking for is a straw man. No simulator is going to provide it. You could just as easily point at a 40 million dollar military sim and say "it doesn't do this, this and this, so it's a toy!". If simulators could be perfect, pilots wouldn't train in real aircraft. If you have complaints, make them. If you want features, ask. Trolling like this (yes, this is trolling, even if you don't realize it) isn't helping anyone or anything. Basically, grow up. :) Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] b-29 alpha
Martin Spott wrote: To my knowledge there _are_ aircraft in FlightGear that are build upon real data. Right ? I think this is always the case. Take the B-29 for instance. Josh has obviously done a ton of research to get the dimensions and proportions down exactly right ... that's a key component of dynamics modeling. Along with that you want to figure out the mass of the aircraft and refine the mass distribution throughout the airframe (engines, fuel, pilots, cargo, balance, etc.) Then of course you need flight data, but even with limited flight data, you can start to craft a very plausible model based on aircraft mass, dimensions, power plants, etc. I don't think anyone sits down and makes up an entire aircraft from scratch based on ficticious number and pure guessing. We use guesses just do that to fill in the gaps for things we don't know. But often the guesses are educated and at least in the right ball park. In the end, the quality of the model depends greatly on the quality and amount of data the aircraft designer can find. For Level 3 FTD certification, the FAA has a long lists of flight tests you need to run to validate against real aircraft performance. It is very difficult/expensive to get all the data required for the FAA certification, and no FlightGear model has gone to those extremes that I'm aware of. However, someone with the resources, time, and data could certainly go through the process. There's nothing in our code or infrastructure that would prevent or limit us from being able to do this. To my experience what makes the most significant difference between FlightGear and a real aircraft is the limited view angle in FlightGear - as long as you don't have a a simulator with multiple screens. But for the price tag of a couple of large TFT displays you can afford your own PPL Compared to that the difference in the flight 'behaviour' of a real C172 (or PA-28) and the one in FlightGear is neglectible. At least these two get really close to reality - pretty much close enough to use FlightGear for trainig final approaches for example, Yes to get to a good level of realism you need: 1. A cockpit mockup with all the gauges, switch, lights, controls etc. in approximately the right place. 2. A reasonable field of view on your visual system (often accomplished with multiple projectors, or large screens.) 3. Refined/validated flight dynamics. 4. Motion isn't required at the lower levels of FAA certification, but it is a really nice thing to have when done right. The problem is that it is hard to do right, and there is a cascading effect on other elements of the simulator. It's actually a lot of fun to play around at this next level up, but it's also a lot of work, and there's enough issues and problems that it's difficult for a single person to do everything well themselves. It often becomes less of a hobby and more of a sickness (or business.) :-) 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] b-29 alpha
Steve Hosgood wrote: > Some of the folk on this list are private pilots from what I see being > discussed. How well do those pilots reckon the simulated aircraft in > FlightGear mimic the real ones, given that the FDMs are (apparently) > empirically created from the aircraft's basic layout and physical > properties? To my knowledge there _are_ aircraft in FlightGear that are build upon real data. Right ? To my experience what makes the most significant difference between FlightGear and a real aircraft is the limited view angle in FlightGear - as long as you don't have a a simulator with multiple screens. But for the price tag of a couple of large TFT displays you can afford your own PPL Compared to that the difference in the flight 'behaviour' of a real C172 (or PA-28) and the one in FlightGear is neglectible. At least these two get really close to reality - pretty much close enough to use FlightGear for trainig final approaches for example, 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] b-29 alpha
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 15:45, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > >AFAIK *no* airplane currently modelled > >in FlightGear has ever been verified against the original machine. > > > > I'm not disagreeing, but I would like to point out that FlightGear has a > lot of stuff built in for those that want to move beyond a simple video > game. > Yeah, and I'm not knocking FlightGear and all the great work that's been put into it. As you say, the ability to connect it to dedicated cockpit simulators (even on a motion-platform?) moves it well away from "just a game". Some of the folk on this list are private pilots from what I see being discussed. How well do those pilots reckon the simulated aircraft in FlightGear mimic the real ones, given that the FDMs are (apparently) empirically created from the aircraft's basic layout and physical properties? > There are hooks and facilities to connect FlightGear up to realistic > cockpit controls, switches, etc., and connect up to lights, gauges, > etc. A cockpit mockup with the displays and controls in the correct > locations goes a long ways torwards turning FlightGear into a legitimate > training tool. We have the ability to syncronize multiple display > channels, which allows people to design advanced visual systems with > wrap around screens. FlightGear can drive projectors or monitors which > gives you a lot of flexibilty to create a display system appropriate for > your particular needs and budget. > Is there actually a way to connect a motion platform? I recall hearing about a "motion chair" connected to one of the old (0.5.6 ish) versions of FG, but I'm not sure if that's the same thing. Similarly, what about force-feedback to control-columns? > To be fair to Josh, this is big reason why big full motion simulators > for a specific aircraft cost millions of dollars. The flight dynamics > data (and the work to get it and validate it) alone can easily exceed a > million dollars. Josh has done some good work. Keep it up, Josh. Especially the nose art :-) Steve ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] b-29 alpha
Steve Hosgood wrote: Interactive history is certainly far better than dry facts in books, but we'd have to be careful how we "spread historical information". FlightGear might well be a great means of keeping the historical flying experience alive. The trouble is, AFAIK *no* airplane currently modelled in FlightGear has ever been verified against the original machine. I'm *not* knocking what Josh has done here - nor of course anyone else's efforts. FlightGear is great for all those people who (like me) cannot afford to pilot real aircraft, or who just don't want to. However, we can't ignore the fact that, good though it may be, FlightGear is basically a video game. I'm not disagreeing, but I would like to point out that FlightGear has a lot of stuff built in for those that want to move beyond a simple video game. There are hooks and facilities to connect FlightGear up to realistic cockpit controls, switches, etc., and connect up to lights, gauges, etc. A cockpit mockup with the displays and controls in the correct locations goes a long ways torwards turning FlightGear into a legitimate training tool. We have the ability to syncronize multiple display channels, which allows people to design advanced visual systems with wrap around screens. FlightGear can drive projectors or monitors which gives you a lot of flexibilty to create a display system appropriate for your particular needs and budget. As "shipped" you are right, but there are a lot of hooks built in which allow you to use FlightGear in much more serious and professional settings. [ I take it, Josh, that I'm right in assuming that you've not flown a real B29? Nor even put an accurate model of a B29 in a wind tunnel to check how well the FDM is doing its stuff? :-) ] To be fair to Josh, this is big reason why big full motion simulators for a specific aircraft cost millions of dollars. The flight dynamics data (and the work to get it and validate it) alone can easily exceed a million dollars. We are all doing the best we can. In the case of the B29, I'm sure the hope is to simply get as close as reasonably possible. Unless someone with a few million dollars laying around wants a perfect simulation of a B-29. In that case I can hook you up with some contacts. :-) That's not to be taken as a complaint, but if we don't make people aware of this, then in 100 years time they'll be trying to re-enact battles of WWII using your B29 model on "FlightGear 29.2.1 for HoloDeck" and wondering why the bomber jocks of WWII claimed certain feats which they can't duplicate in 2105. So they'll rewrite history books to reflect what the HoloDeck simulation showed (the historical accounts obviously being exaggerated!), and they'll be wrong. What happens in 2105 I'm sure will depend on how the future historical writers want to slant the past, and what point they want to make. Oh and don't forget that "stupid" is hereditary. :-) I'm sure it will exist in 2105 with very similar proportions to today. :-) There was an aviation accident where people were "hurt". This led to the inevitable lawsuits. The plaintif's lawyers found a simulator of the same type of aircraft and flew into the flight regime in question and made some observations about the aircraft's behavior in that regime. In this lawsuit, the defense brought in their own expert to testify about how the real aircraft would behave, which was different from the results in the sim. The plaintif's lawyers pressed said expert witness on the point, at which time he revealed that he was the one who developed the flight dynamics for said simulator, and the regime the plaintif was exploring was outside of the realm where data was taken and validated for this sim, and thus the results were completely invalid. So you are right, people will probably try to derive useful conclusions from simulators in 2105 and there's a good chance they will be wrong. :-) Just as we can tell that the ancient Egyptians had help from aliens in building the pyramids, 'cos they "obviously couldn't have done it by themselves". :-) Unless someone comes up with a 3000 year old pyramid building simulator that clearly shows they had help from aliens, I still am going to believe that the aliens built the pyramids entirely themselves before returning to Kobol and Caprica to work on their new fancy robot project that just got funding. 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] b-29 alpha
Steve Hosgood probed: > However, we can't ignore the fact that, good though it may be, > FlightGear is basically a video game. Don't feed the trolls, folks. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] b-29 alpha
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 18:13, Josh Babcock wrote: > Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:22:48 -0400, Josh wrote in message > >>Be warned, racy but authentic nose art... > > > > ..cute. We need more of these, to remain authentic. ;o) > > > > > > Yeah, this is an excellent opportunity to spread some historical > information... Interactive history is certainly far better than dry facts in books, but we'd have to be careful how we "spread historical information". FlightGear might well be a great means of keeping the historical flying experience alive. The trouble is, AFAIK *no* airplane currently modelled in FlightGear has ever been verified against the original machine. I'm *not* knocking what Josh has done here - nor of course anyone else's efforts. FlightGear is great for all those people who (like me) cannot afford to pilot real aircraft, or who just don't want to. However, we can't ignore the fact that, good though it may be, FlightGear is basically a video game. [ I take it, Josh, that I'm right in assuming that you've not flown a real B29? Nor even put an accurate model of a B29 in a wind tunnel to check how well the FDM is doing its stuff? :-) ] That's not to be taken as a complaint, but if we don't make people aware of this, then in 100 years time they'll be trying to re-enact battles of WWII using your B29 model on "FlightGear 29.2.1 for HoloDeck" and wondering why the bomber jocks of WWII claimed certain feats which they can't duplicate in 2105. So they'll rewrite history books to reflect what the HoloDeck simulation showed (the historical accounts obviously being exaggerated!), and they'll be wrong. Just as we can tell that the ancient Egyptians had help from aliens in building the pyramids, 'cos they "obviously couldn't have done it by themselves". :-) Steve ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] b-29 alpha
Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:22:48 -0400, Josh wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Ok, I finally got some sort of flying FDM working, so here it is in all of its alpha glory: http://home.comcast.net/~jrbabcock/superfort/b29.tgz Be warned, racy but authentic nose art (she's clothed, but you have to look hard to see it). Other versions to follow, probably 'Enola Gay', 'Fifi', and something from the Korean war. The others should all be kid safe, but for now 'Lucky Lady' is motivating me :) ..cute. We need more of these, to remain authentic. ;o) Yeah, this is an excellent opportunity to spread some historical information. I am toying with the idea of including a brief history of the 29 and each of the individual planes modeled along with the documentation. This is a low priority though. The ironic thing is that many really artistic planes had to be repainted when the first 29's started completing their tours and cycling back to the states for propaganda tours and refits. Once the religious and women's groups saw them they raised a stink and the AAF eventually banned personalized painting on B-29s, even after many of the squadrons started self censoring. At the end of the war almost all the planes had the exact same nose art, only difference being which city was highlighted in the painting. See "city of" nose art on google images. Luckily a lot of this art was preserved in one way or another, and some units, like the 509th composite (nuclear group) seem to have retained all of their nose art both puritanical and explicit. 'Lucky Lady' is actually preserved somewhere on the actual skin panels, removed from the aircraft. I think the superfort's were the only planes with this problem, mostly because they had much more explicit artwork, probably due to the remoteness and loneliness of Tinian and Guam compared to England and France. Josh ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] b-29 alpha
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:22:48 -0400, Josh wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Ok, I finally got some sort of flying FDM working, so here it is in > all of its alpha glory: > > http://home.comcast.net/~jrbabcock/superfort/b29.tgz > > Be warned, racy but authentic nose art (she's clothed, but you have to > look hard to see it). Other versions to follow, probably 'Enola Gay', > 'Fifi', and something from the Korean war. The others should all be > kid safe, but for now 'Lucky Lady' is motivating me :) ..cute. We need more of these, to remain authentic. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] b-29 alpha
I get the following outputs from FlightGear 0.9.8 on Debian Linux: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /usr/local/FlightGear/bin/fgfs --fg-scenery=/usr/local/FlightGear/share/FlightGear/Scenery-0.9.8 --airport=LFBO --enable-real-weather-fetch --aircraft=b29 --lat=43.62176 --lon=1.377905 WARNING: ssgSGIHeader::: Failed to open '/usr/local/FlightGear/share/FlightGear/Aircraft/b29/Models/b29-tail-mark.rgb' for reading. WARNING: ssgSGIHeader::: Failed to open '/usr/local/FlightGear/share/FlightGear/Aircraft/b29/Models/m51.rgb' for reading. Object LeftAileron not found Object RightNavLightOn not found Object RightNavLightOn not found Object RightLandLightOn not found Object RightLandLightOn not found Object OpaqueWindows not found Altitude = 499 Temp at alt (C) = 9 Temp sea level (C) = 9.95687 Altitude = 499 Dewpoint at alt (C) = 8 Dewpoint at sea level (C) = 8.0998 Incorrect path in configuration file. b29-common.xml initialized WARNING: Legacy engine definition in YASim configuration file. Please fix. WARNING: Legacy engine definition in YASim configuration file. Please fix. WARNING: Legacy engine definition in YASim configuration file. Please fix. WARNING: Legacy engine definition in YASim configuration file. Please fix. Segmentation fault Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
