On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 18:55 -0700, Ron Jensen wrote:
[snip]
reasonable behavior for all alpha angles. I'm not claiming aerodynamic
truth, just reasonable behavior.
Hi Ron,
Many thanks for taking the time to explain. I 'think'
I understand a little more ;=))
As you state, using sine(alpha)
On Friday 25 February 2011 08:13:57 Geoff McLane wrote:
Hi Ron,
Many thanks for taking the time to explain. I 'think'
I understand a little more ;=))
As you state, using sine(alpha) continues to allow
up and down moments as you flex say the elevator with
a tail wind, but prevents the very
Hi Ron,
As usual, a little knowledge is DANGEROUS ;=))
I do not think I want to change anything to do with
the elevator at all, but thanks for the information of
where to look if I did.
All I was pointing out is that before the sin
change, just sitting on a runway with a tail wind
component,
Hi,
Re: http://www.geoffair.net/tmp/tilted-001.png (updated)
Thanks Ron, and Stuart, for the tailwind c172.xml
change. As stated, all tests so far on this are great...
with due care can now taxi, takeoff and land with a
modest tail wind ;=))
Is there any 'documentation' I can read on why
On Thursday 24 February 2011 11:41:43 Geoff McLane wrote:
Hi,
Re: http://www.geoffair.net/tmp/tilted-001.png (updated)
Thanks Ron, and Stuart, for the tailwind c172.xml
change. As stated, all tests so far on this are great...
with due care can now taxi, takeoff and land with a
modest tail
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:44:04 -0800 (PST)
Gene Buckle ge...@deltasoft.com wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, AJ MacLeod wrote:
Just ignore him, he's clearly an illiterate imbecile ;-)
I think ya'll just need to hang this one up and let it alone.
*sigh* People will always read bad motives into
] Sinking feeling - c172 on gravel runway
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
I think ya'll just need to hang this one up and let it alone.
g.
I know. What a love-fest, eh? ;-)
Indeed.
g.
Welcome to this space Commander. Here you will find self-opionated
bastards such as as I
discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Sinking feeling - c172 on gravel
runway
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
I think ya'll just need to hang this one up and let it alone.
g.
I know. What a love-fest, eh? ;-)
Indeed.
g.
Welcome to this space Commander. Here you
On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 11:53 +, AJ MacLeod wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:44:04 -0800 (PST)
Gene Buckle ge...@deltasoft.com wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, AJ MacLeod wrote:
Just ignore him, he's clearly an illiterate imbecile ;-)
I think ya'll just need to hang this one up and let it
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 15:57:41 +
Alasdair ali...@btinternet.com wrote:
Enough already, AJ
I refuse to make public the contents of the off-list message you wrote
to me addressed Dear Adversory
This whole tongue in cheek business seems to be acceptable one direction,
doesn't it? As I said,
Enough of that please.
I would be grateful if both of you AJ MacLeod and Alasdair ould stop
polluting everyone's mail box with your discussion.
Thank you very much.
Bertrand.
--
The ultimate all-in-one performance
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 15:34 +0100, Bertrand Coconnier wrote:
Correct. JSBSim itself makes no distinction between ground materials
(hence the reason why some aircrafts are able to land on water). This
can however be managed with Nasal scripts. So I would say that this
issue is likely located in
Hi,
Though, newbe, since i have to maintain some old jsbsim aircraft, my
understanding ts becoming better.
Here we do have a c172p which is using nasal only for animation, that scrip
is, to me, right now, useless.
The data compression, rotation and so on, are exposed in the, today,
jsbsim
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:43:43 +
Alasdair ali...@btinternet.com wrote:
On an OT philisophical note..
Is , or rather, was the introduction of NASAL scripting a Good Thing
or can it be considered as the hugest abomination to ever befall the FG
World
I really can't see how anyone with any
Every engineering tool and every solution to every problem has strengths and
weaknesses. The trick is to make the best advantage of the strengths and
find suitable work arounds to minimize the impact of the weaknesses.
Hopefully we are successful in this, but software development is always a
Hi,
Nasal allows people to do things never anticipated by any of our developers
who write C++ code. The property system allows us to connect new systems
models with new graphics and animations with new external communication
protocols without changing a single line of C++ code. An aircraft
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 18:46 -0700, Ron Jensen wrote:
Hey, I just reproduced the thing. Wind was 14 from 330 and I was on 08 so
there is a small tailwind. The c172p isn't set up to handle out-of-flight
envelope winds so it produces a large, erroneous pitching moment. I have an
idea for a
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 12:57 +, AJ MacLeod wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:43:43 +
Alasdair ali...@btinternet.com wrote:
On an OT philisophical note..
Is , or rather, was the introduction of NASAL scripting a Good Thing
or can it be considered as the hugest abomination to ever
Curtis Olson wrote:
On the subject of nasal and the property system. What this gives us is the
ability to create all kinds of specific aircraft functionality or
functionality specific to [...]
I agree for the cases you're outlining in your statement. On the other
hand I think I understand
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Martin Spott wrote:
Curtis Olson wrote:
On the subject of nasal and the property system. What this gives us is
the
ability to create all kinds of specific aircraft functionality or
functionality specific to [...]
I agree for the cases you're outlining
Geoff McLane wrote:
And Martin, I was always specifically selecting YGIL:33,
regardless of winds!
Ah, ok nevertheless, consider taxiing downwind to your taxi
holding position, you wouldn't expect your aircraft tilting back _that_
much ;-)
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:31:14 +0100, Geoff wrote in message
1297434674.6683.9.camel@DELL02:
And Martin, I was always specifically selecting YGIL:33,
regardless of winds! And assumed the r/w selection was
based on wind, but in the YGIL case, IRL the short
1000 ft 08/26 is NOT really used
Hi Curt,
No probs, now that it seems Ron might have found
something, thus the thread is hovering on closing,
so chat away...
Actually, I would go so far as to say that each
of us would probably be considered totally
insane by at least some others perspective ;=))
Re:
On Friday 11 February 2011 10:07:11 Geoff McLane wrote:
Hi Curt,
No probs, now that it seems Ron might have found
something, thus the thread is hovering on closing,
so chat away...
While we argue over how many angles can dance on the head of a pin over on the
JSBSim list, here is a simple
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Ron Jensen wrote:
On Friday 11 February 2011 10:07:11 Geoff McLane wrote:
Hi Curt,
No probs, now that it seems Ron might have found
something, thus the thread is hovering on closing,
so chat away...
While we argue over how many angles can dance on the head
Hi Ron,
Beautiful and quick ;=)) Thank you...
I was about to report, that sitting on LFPZ:12L, and
set a manual wind of 25025KT, and Apply - add a couple
of full elevator movements, and the a/c tumbled
head over heals, all by itself - Crashed!
But after applying your patch to the c172p.xml, I
I've also got on my TODO list replacing the Nasal nose gear animation code
with straight XML animations.
Maybe this can help creating the necessary animations:
http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Howto:_Animate_gear_scissors
Torsten
On 02/11/2011 10:28 AM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Ron Jensen wrote:
On Friday 11 February 2011 10:07:11 Geoff McLane wrote:
Hi Curt,
No probs, now that it seems Ron might have found
something, thus the thread is hovering on closing,
so chat away...
While we
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 15:38 +, Martin Spott wrote:
Curtis Olson wrote:
On the subject of nasal and the property system. What this gives us is the
ability to create all kinds of specific aircraft functionality or
functionality specific to [...]
I agree for the cases you're
Hello Dave,
I did meant the Nasal script is useless, since we can do the same feature
only with jsbsim .
Functions complex or not can be done within it.
It can answer to such external feature like animation.
Because we don't forget the main target, with jsbsim, to build the most
realistic
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 14:59 +, Alasdair wrote:
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 12:57 +, AJ MacLeod wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:43:43 +
Alasdair ali...@btinternet.com wrote:
On an OT philisophical note..
Is , or rather, was the introduction of NASAL scripting a Good Thing
or
While you like discussing how to do gear animation right does
anyone remember this experiment (ok, the colours are wrong in the
video, the aircraft would be blue with yellow paintings):
http://foxtrot.mgras.net/bitmap/FGFS/gear-animation.mpeg
This aircraft model doesn't contain a single
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 21:26:51 +
Alasdair ali...@btinternet.com wrote:
Actually, thinking back to my original question, I would like to
question your authority to make such a disgusting suggestion as to
question the sanity of a profesional who dares to contradict your views.
Curt's somewhat
On 02/11/2011 11:54 AM, Alasdair wrote:
You will note in all further dicussions that I will refer to nasal
as NASAL (Not Another Scripting Language), which denies its very
existentence through a lie in its own nomenclature. cf GNU which
makes no such assertion, but was probably dreamed up by a
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 22:11 +, AJ MacLeod wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 21:26:51 +
Alasdair ali...@btinternet.com wrote:
Actually, thinking back to my original question, I would like to
question your authority to make such a disgusting suggestion as to
question the sanity of a
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Andy Ross wrote:
On 02/11/2011 11:54 AM, Alasdair wrote:
You will note in all further dicussions that I will refer to nasal
as NASAL (Not Another Scripting Language), which denies its very
existentence through a lie in its own nomenclature. cf GNU which
makes no such
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 15:23 -0800, Andy Ross wrote:
On 02/11/2011 11:54 AM, Alasdair wrote:
You will note in all further dicussions that I will refer to nasal
as NASAL (Not Another Scripting Language), which denies its very
existentence through a lie in its own nomenclature. cf GNU which
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 15:49 -0800, Gene Buckle wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Andy Ross wrote:
On 02/11/2011 11:54 AM, Alasdair wrote:
You will note in all further dicussions that I will refer to nasal
as NASAL (Not Another Scripting Language), which denies its very
existentence through a
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Andy Ross a...@plausible.org wrote:
On 02/11/2011 11:54 AM, Alasdair wrote:
You will note in all further dicussions that I will refer to nasal
as NASAL (Not Another Scripting Language), which denies its very
existentence through a lie in its own
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, AJ MacLeod wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 23:30:40 +
Alasdair ali...@btinternet.com wrote:
Well, Goodness Gracious me! Not only does does this fellow deem it
proper to question my sanity for daring to air a reasonable
philosophical question, but dammit he is right back
I think ya'll just need to hang this one up and let it alone.
g.
I know. What a love-fest, eh? ;-)
jb
--
The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE:
Pinpoint memory and threading
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
I think ya'll just need to hang this one up and let it alone.
g.
I know. What a love-fest, eh? ;-)
Indeed.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.simpits.org/geneb - The Me-109F/X Project
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 16:44 -0800, Gene Buckle wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, AJ MacLeod wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 23:30:40 +
Alasdair ali...@btinternet.com wrote:
Well, Goodness Gracious me! Not only does does this fellow deem it
proper to question my sanity for daring to air a
team.
Regards,
D. A. Andre
CDR, USN (ret)
-Original Message-
From: Gene Buckle [mailto:ge...@deltasoft.com]
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 8:02 PM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Sinking feeling - c172 on gravel runway
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Jon S
On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 19:51 +, Martin Spott wrote:
I have seen this on various asphalt runways as well...
Well, I just experimented by editing apt.dat.gz, and
inverted the 'surface' numbers - made the 4204 ft
runway 15x a 4, and the short 08x 1902 a 5, and no more
tilting ;=)) so far...
One
On Thursday 10 February 2011 06:09:56 Geoff McLane wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 19:51 +, Martin Spott wrote:
I have seen this on various asphalt runways as well...
Well, I just experimented by editing apt.dat.gz, and
inverted the 'surface' numbers - made the 4204 ft
runway 15x a 4, and
Correct. JSBSim itself makes no distinction between ground materials (hence
the reason why some aircrafts are able to land on water). This can however
be managed with Nasal scripts. So I would say that this issue is likely
located in one of the C172 Nasal scripts.
Bertrand
Le 10 févr. 2011
By the way we can play with the gear Z position (gear/unit/z-position) and
the well known terrain nasal script (geodinfo) which expose the terrain
load-resistance.
Though, that feature is only eye candy.
More constructive, to use the specifics friction_factor, rolling_friction
experimented with
Hi,
RE: http://www.geoffair.net/tmp/tilted-001.png
Thank you. All good points...
Am presently Terrasync e000n40 so I can try the
Grass (3) at LFPZ Saint Cyr l Ecole, where I am sure
I have seen this tilting back several times before...
Also, it does not happen EVERY time, in each of 3
On 02/10/2011 08:15 AM, Geoff McLane wrote:
Also, it does not happen EVERY time, in each of 3
machines, 3 OSes... but when I get the situation, it seems
very repeatable...
Is there any chance this depends on having a _tailwind_
or something like that?
Crosswinds and tailwinds can cause some
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:27:55 -0700, John wrote in message
4d54120b.1090...@av8n.com:
On 02/10/2011 08:15 AM, Geoff McLane wrote:
Also, it does not happen EVERY time, in each of 3
machines, 3 OSes... but when I get the situation, it seems
very repeatable...
Is there any chance this
Hi,
Re: http://www.geoffair.net/tmp/tilted-001.png
Again, thanks for the multiple inputs...
1. __tailwind__
(a) John, I wanted to try your metar to see if it looked
related, but like Arnt I can not get the metar string through
the command parser!
Always -
Fatal error: Failed to open file
Geoff McLane wrote:
1. __tailwind__
I would assume that if you don't specify the runway on startup, you'll
automagically get placed against the wind, as you would do in real
life. If I'm correct, then tailwind does not apply.
Cheers,
martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just
Geoff McLane wrote:
I have never seen this on other runway
surfaces... even on the default YGIL:08
which is 'Dirt'!
I have seen this on various asphalt runways as well, I think it's a
general issue with the current state of the C172.
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly -
54 matches
Mail list logo
