Re: [Flightgear-devel] about fdm properties

2013-05-11 Thread James Turner
On 10 May 2013, at 20:59, Stuart Buchanan stuar...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Alan Teeder wrote: I think that you a right in assuming that the developers are not interested in the FDMs. I posted this a week ago

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tree issues

2013-05-11 Thread Vivian Meazza
Stuart -Original Message- From: Vivian Meazza [mailto:vivian.mea...@lineone.net] Sent: 10 May 2013 22:50 To: 'FlightGear developers discussions' Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Tree issues Stuart Sent: 10 May 2013 20:10 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re:

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Shader compile failure

2013-05-11 Thread James Turner
On 10 May 2013, at 20:21, Stuart Buchanan stuar...@gmail.com wrote: Should be fixed now. Let me know if not - I don't see the warning on my NVIDIA GT260M GPU. Thanks Stuart. The Apple OpenGL renderer is a rather interesting beast - it's a clean-room front-end to the drivers, one of aspect

Re: [Flightgear-devel] about fdm properties

2013-05-11 Thread Anders Gidenstam
On Fri, 3 May 2013, Alan Teeder wrote: It exposes a serious problem in JSBSim which affects all Datcom users. Isn't it rather a missing feature than a fault in JSBSim? The JSBSim documentation and axis names are fairly clear on that the moments are specified around the yaw, pitch and roll

Re: [Flightgear-devel] about fdm properties

2013-05-11 Thread Alan Teeder
The problem is that it is not documented that JSBSim only accepts body axis derivatives/aero coefficients for the rotary axes. The linear axis has the choice of body or wind/stability axes. I had assumed (wrongly) that as it was not specified, the rotary axes used the same axis frame as the

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Jsbsim-devel] about fdm properties

2013-05-11 Thread Jon S. Berndt
I agree that - at least - we should mention it in the documentation. We could hypothetically also accept data in any of the supported frames. Unfortunately, a lot of the data present in technical reports (NACA/NASA/AIAA) that I have seen is ambiguous as to frame for the rotational

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Jsbsim-devel] about fdm properties

2013-05-11 Thread Tony Peden
I see, to recall being a part of the original decision to do body axis only rotational coeffs. It made all kinds of sense to me then and still does today. That said, however, I have since learned that stability axis coeffs aren't that unusual. So, my bottom line is that with the mechanisms

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Jsbsim-devel] about fdm properties

2013-05-11 Thread Alan Teeder
Thanks for taking this on board. The effect is only important at high incidences. With a very conventional aircraft that stalls at 12 or so degrees incidence, and therefore operates at rather less than that, the difference is academic, – given the accuracy of measuring/estimating the lateral