Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: Some FG videos...
Handy to know - thanks LeeE On Sunday 11 Dec 2005 22:26, Pigeon wrote: That list on my site needs an update ;) My P3 died a while ago. The box i did the capturing is a P4 2.4GHz, 1G ram, video card is a nvidia 6600 256MB. I do realize with my machine is not quite smooth enough to capture a 800x600 video of FG with xvidcap. 640x480 seems ok. Also i imagine without sound it would be smoother. Though, I was using xvidcap encode-on-the-fly to create those videos. It uses ffmpeg in the back. I noticed as soon as I start the recording/encoding, FG's fps dropped about 15-20fps or so. With xvidcap you can get it to capture only frames (into image files) and then encode them into video later, this should work much better on slower machines. Fantastic stuff. What hardware (processor/mobo/video card) are you using to make the videos? I notice that your videos have framerates in the corner and I just wanted to add to the vague sense of relative FG performance I keep in my head for hardware purchase reasons, hehe. P.S. I looked at your my machines section of your webpage. Is that current? Are you getting those framerates with a P3-600 while doing multiplayer? What video card? ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: kernel-source-2.6.8: [PATCH] CH Products USB yoke and pedals recognized but frozen by SET_IDLE
On Wednesday 30 Nov 2005 13:45, Vassilii Khachaturov wrote: I have changed my pinning policy to prefer testing over stable: APT policy: (950, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (300, 'unstable') and ran a full apt-get dist-upgrade. Having then downgraded freeglut back to the stable's 2.2.0 version and forbidding the current testing release of the 2.4.0 one, I recompiled flightgear, and it worked on Debian testing as well, also seeing the joystick, with the 2.6.14 kernel (sorry for my previous ignorance on this bug thread about the new kernel packaging scheme that had lead me to miss the post 2.6.8 kernel packages in the Debian archive). The funny thing is that (just for fun) I have retested the older (2.6.8) kernel, even after complete power down (with the power cord removed to make sure), and now I see that the CH Products yoke and pedals DO work with my computer (/dev/input/js[01]). Perhaps some change was introduced in the user-level USB utilities (and/or hotplug) that masked (or augmented, if you prefer it this way) the default kernel behaviour. You may reassign the present bug to some other package if you know to which one :-) Hence, I didn't work any further on the issue (my plan was to hunt down if an equivalent patch was needed to a later kernel, and creating a kernel config option to mask this patch for those who are afraid of it). Fly safe (even if in the virtual reality), Vassilii I wonder if this might have been anything to do with devfs/udev issues? LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Sound on Linux systems
On Tuesday 15 Nov 2005 01:33, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 08:38:19 +0800, Innis wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello All I am just wundering if anyone else is experiencing the same problem I am. I have FG on a duel boot box. On windows the sound works all the time.But on the linux system (Mandrake 10.0)the first time I boot into it it does not work but every time after that the sound works ..try alsaconf. I get exactly the same problem on my lap-top (it's the only one of my systems with Windows installed). I noticed while watching the console messages scroll by, that the driver module for the sound card fails to load during the first boot after running windows but subsequent re-boots are fine. As the h/w driver fails to load I doubt that alsaconf will help. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Sound on Linux systems
On Tuesday 15 Nov 2005 20:32, Andy Ross wrote: Lee Elliott wrote: I get exactly the same problem on my lap-top (it's the only one of my systems with Windows installed). I noticed while watching the console messages scroll by, that the driver module for the sound card fails to load during the first boot after running windows but subsequent re-boots are fine. I would submit this to the ALSA folks as a bug report. Most likely it's an issue with the initialization code for your sound hardware -- it can properly handle the cold boot state, but not the state that windows leaves it in following a warm boot. Be sure to include the output of lspci -vvv so they know what hardware you have. Andy I think it might not be a cold/warm start problem because I'm pretty sure that one of the things I tried, when I first found the problem, was to try powering-down before re-booting back into linux but it didn't cure it, iirc. It suggested to me that something was set in nv ram somewhere, which was causing the problem. A curious aspect of this problem is that _failing_ to load the driver seems to fix it - perhaps the sound h/w resets any nv ram settings itself if it finds it hasn't got a driver loaded. The lap-top is an old P3-750 Viao - 8MB neomagic video so no use at all for FG. Even running atlas on it results in 100% cpu utilisation because of the s/w rendering. I can't see the Alsa team putting too much effort in fixing this problem on such old h/w and it only really gets used as a rendering node, or playing the occasional PC game. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] So what do you fly?
On Tuesday 08 Nov 2005 18:43, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:08:26 +0100, Gerard wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Le mardi 08 novembre 2005 à 12:37 -0400, Enrique Vaamonde a écrit : Gerard ROBIN wrote: Le mardi 08 novembre 2005 à 14:32 +, David Ginger a écrit : On Friday 04 Nov 2005 12:31, Jon Berndt wrote: Suhkoi 27 . . . Nato codename Flanker That one ? http://ghours.club.fr/Flanker.jpg wow nice...do you know when is it going to be available ? cheers -E Sorry it is not available, If you red my previous mail you understood it is not GPL. ..you did ask the author? May be i could schedule to do the Su33 which is the Naval version. (Su33 on Nimitz that could be funny) Before i must achieve F8 Crusader and F4U Corsair, I do not work quickly. Cheers I've been planning to do an SU-37 because I want to play with canards and vectored thrust... Dunno how soon I'll get around to it though - still got a few other things to work on and finish. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] CitatiionII
On Thursday 03 Nov 2005 17:09, Andy Ross wrote: Curtis L. Olson wrote: However, I know Andy's intension was to produce plausible behavior across all flight regimes as best as can be guessed at, and there is clearly a bug where stalls come *way* to early in the negative aoa regime. Yes, this is a real bug. It's not the stall per se, I think, but a discontinuity somewhere in the lift curve. Every time this comes up I end up re-reading the (admittedly hairy) Surface.cpp code looking for it, and get lost. The stall handling itself, though, is fairly transparent and looks clean. Something else is going on. I should probably take some time and write up a test rig that graphs the lift curve that emerges from the model, but that requires generating a Surface object with real world coefficients, which requires running it through the solver on a real model, which has interactions that kinda obscure the pure behavior of the Surface. Ick. :( Andy This is an interesting topic to me as I've seen it many times while tuning YASim configs but it seemed sort of reasonable behaviour to me. If the AoA of a wing decreases from a positive value (below it's stall angle), through zero, into negative it seems to me that you are not creating a situation where turbulent air passing over the wing un-sticks from the aerofoil surface. Instead you still have good flow but the direction of lift changes. If you imagine a situation where there's no gravity and you have a symmetrical aerofoil you will get equal lift from equal amounts of +ve or -ve AoA but in opposite directions, which is how rudders and sails work. When you throw in real wing aerofoils and gravity I would expect to see some discontinuous behaviour at -ve AoAs. Dunno what exactly :) LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Snapshot for pleasure
On Sunday 30 Oct 2005 18:24, Gerard ROBIN wrote: Don't ask me to do it again Just before http://ghours.club.fr/carrier-landing_1.jpg Just after http://ghours.club.fr/carrier-landing_2.jpg :) LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] fgfs failure with freeglut on SuSE 10.0
On Sunday 30 Oct 2005 00:20, Sid Boyce wrote: Distribution has freeglut-2.4.0 built with gcc-4.0.2 freeglut (fgfs): Failed to create cursor freeglut ERROR: Function glutSetCursor called without first calling 'glutInit'. -- - Rebuilt openal, SimGear and FlightGear-0.9.8 from sources and also from CVS meet with the same error. Attempting to build freeglut CVS gives many errors of the same kind.. freeglut_callbacks.c: In function 'glutTabletButtonFunc': freeglut_callbacks.c:354: warning: ISO C forbids conversion of object pointer to function pointer type freeglut_callbacks.c:354: warning: ISO C forbids conversion of function pointer to object pointer type Help appreciated. Regards Sid. It seems that there are some problems with freeglut-2.4 and regressing to 2.2 should get you working. I had to do the same thing recently after updating one of my Debian boxes. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Aircraft crashes unexpectedly
On Sunday 16 Oct 2005 17:19, George Patterson wrote: On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 22:15 +1300, Dene Maxwell wrote: Just an observation that may be of interest; I can fly approx 1500Nm over water at 300kts and not have a problem... reasonable graphics and even land successfully (any landing you can walk away from is a good landing!!!). I can't fly approx 400Nm at 300kts over land without the aircraft crashing about 300Nm into the flight. Some background NZWN (Wellington International,NZ) to YSSY (Sydney-Kingsford-Smith, Australia) 1484NM in a A10 Thunderbolt at 300kts cruise... flight goes great. YSSY (Sydney- Kingsford-Smith, Australia to YBBN (Brisbane International, Australia) 410NM in either an A10 Thunderbolt at 300kts or Cessna 310 twin prop at 180kts crashes at about the 300NM mark. Interestingly I can fly the A10 from YSSY out to sea, then due north to parallel to YBBN then line up for a landing no problems, total trip is about 500NM. The problem seems to be triggered by flying over land for a prolonged period. In all cases the majority of the flight is undertaken under AutoPilot control at variably 5,000 to 10,000 ft ASL. I have tried reducing the screen resolution from 1280x1024 to 800x600 but it makes no difference. The platform is a 1.8Ghz P4, Windows Me, 256M RAM, nVidia GeForce2 MX/MX400 video card (32Mbyte). Any comments would be gratefully received. Dene, You didn't say which version of FlightGear you are using. Using Flightgear CVS, I flew from NZWN to YSSY as you suggested and apart from noting a missing tile (known bug usually due to an airport lying across a tile boundary) I didn't have any problems. YSSY to YBBN: I started flown this route and 300nm out from YBBN , I'm still flying. 300nm from YSSY, still here... Preparing to land at YBBN... Not the best landing but still down in one piece. A couple of possibilities The mostly likely cause is that you have found a bug in 0.9.8. FlightGear 0.9.8 has a few major bugs here and there. Solution: You can either upgrade to CVS (a tricky task under windows which involved installing cygwin) or wait for version 0.9.9. The other (albeit unlikely) possible is that it is something in your hardware or software set up. Could someone with similar hardware and OS comment on this cross country flight? My hardware doesn't match what Dene is using. (I am still thinking that the problem was to do with a 0.9.8 bug) George Patterson The only thing that occurs to me is that a lot more textures are used when flying over land than when over the sea. You could try re-naming the Textures.high folder, so that the high-res ground textures aren't used and see if that makes any difference. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flight Path Marker with external Flight model + Creating Video Files
On Tuesday 11 Oct 2005 19:49, Jens wrote: Hi all, I am sorry if this topic has already been discussed on the board, but I cannot find a solution. 1.)I want to visualize the flight path of an Airplane in Flightgear. This is possible with the A-10, that is in the 0.98a-package. But this flight path marker only works, if I use the internal Flightgear flightmodel. If I drive flightgear from outside (using fdm=external), this flight path marker does not work, it's just not there. Annotation: I am using the FG-Interface of Aerosim in Matlab/Simulink to send my data to flightgear. This works quite fine. Is there any solution to this problem? 2.) X-plane has a nice feature to create/record video files right out of the Simulation. Is there any function (planned) in Flightgear? Or how do you capture videos of Flightgear? I know there is the possibility of some kind of playback, but this is quite unhandy when doing presentations. Sincerely Jens The flightpath/trajectory markers are not FDM specific but they are 'set-up' in the 'set' file for the aircraft i.e A-10cl-set.xml/A-10fl-set.xml for the A-10s. Although I don't remember the complete details, I once looked into enabling them on a global basis and found it was pretty straight forward. The relevant bits are the submodels entries within the sim block and the corresponding keyboard entries within the input section, which is also in the sim block. Your problem could be due to both or either part not working right - that is either the submodels entries aren't being actioned correctly or the key-mapping entries aren't working. You could try having a look at the relevant properties in the property browser to check that everything is present correct. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] New Model: Crusader F-8E
On Tuesday 11 Oct 2005 12:29, Gerard ROBIN wrote: Le mardi 11 octobre 2005 à 04:10 +0100, Lee Elliott a écrit : On Monday 10 Oct 2005 14:14, Gerard ROBIN wrote: One Crusader has been in use by the NASA (i hope to be able to draw the texture) the painting is wonderful. On the French side it has been in use during 35 years ( last flight December 15 1999 ). Waiting for the Rafale, by 1992 it was refurbished with new avionic equipment from Mirage 2000 and Super-Etendard . It became F-8P. Nice work:) I believe that the F-8 that NASA has was used for 'super-critical' wing experiments - Good news: the data may be available - Bad news: it looks a lot different to the standard F-8 wing. LeeE You are right, the real information is : NASA did use two AC one which look like to be normal, an other with wings and fuse modifications (probably to compare performances) http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/Fleet/Medium/EC73-3495. jpg We can find the same with F15. If i get time to do texture it will be only on the reference one not on the experimental one. Cheer I forgot about the DFBW F-8 - they were actually used for different projects. Using a DFBW painted F-8 would be appropriate for messing about with AP/FCS :) LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] New Model: Crusader F-8E
On Monday 10 Oct 2005 14:14, Gerard ROBIN wrote: Le lundi 10 octobre 2005 à 12:06 +0100, AJ MacLeod a écrit : On Monday 10 October 2005 01:39, Gerard ROBIN wrote: I need your remarks to improve it. Not knowing anything at all about the real aircraft, I'm not sure how much useful feedback I can give - other than it flies pretty nicely here (the nocarrier version). You've done a nice job on the model so far, I liked the refuelling probe, ejector seat handles etc... only immediate comment there would be that a spin animation for the wheels (like the Hunter now has) would make a massive difference. I'm sure you'll get round to it eventually... I look forward to the cockpit being completed - this seems like a nice and really interesting addition to the FG naval collection, thanks! Hi AJ, Many Thanks for your answer. About animation you are right i forgot the the spin animation wheel, it is easy to do. In addition to, it should get the ram air turbine (RAT), but i fear that will be to much details. The FDM JSBSim in use is coming from Aeromatic, i only added some extra components especially the the variable wing incidence. I will need a lot of days and many research to get the right FDM parameters. The target is to be as close as possible to the right aircraft specifications ( though.. the speed take off and approach is not so bad). That aircraft has been revolutionary when it arise in 1955. If i can, i should do two versions (two different FDM) the basic US NAVY one and the FRENCH NAVY one which had been improved (by Vought Engineers ) in order to reduce the take off and landing distance because of the low sized French Carrier :=( The last US NAVY group VFP 63 was stopped in 1982. One Crusader has been in use by the NASA (i hope to be able to draw the texture) the painting is wonderful. On the French side it has been in use during 35 years ( last flight December 15 1999 ). Waiting for the Rafale, by 1992 it was refurbished with new avionic equipment from Mirage 2000 and Super-Etendard . It became F-8P. And This is a call to everybody, every informations and data about that Aircraft are Welcome. Cheers http://ghours.club.fr/F-8E.tar.gz Nice work:) I believe that the F-8 that NASA has was used for 'super-critical' wing experiments - Good news: the data may be available - Bad news: it looks a lot different to the standard F-8 wing. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Tutorial - Flight between 2 airports
On Monday 10 Oct 2005 21:13, David Luff wrote: David Ginger writes: Last time I looked on the website for places to fly, all the suggestions seemed to be located in the usa. From a personal perspective, I have little in interest in flying around America. I would rather fly around the small islands in Scotland, or fly at Farnborough. When I sent the original idea of the Jersey - Guernsey route, I hoped that many e-mails would be generated, suggesting better locations. Locations that would be more fun, and give a better sense of reward. Perhaps some Greek Islands, or perhaps Iceland ? The flight between two of the Scottish Islands airports is apparently the shortest scheduled flight in the world. (No flames if it's an urban myth please!). I think it's Papa Westray to Westray, EGEP to EGEW, or vica-versa, and both are in FG. Cheers - Dave I believe it's true that the shortest _scheduled_ flight is the Papa Westray - Westray journey. it's scheduled for 2 min but with a tail-wind it's been flown quite a bit quicker;) LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Appealing to MS Windows community
On Wednesday 05 Oct 2005 08:33, Vivian Meazza wrote: Lee Elliott So far, I'm just thinking in terms of a tool that would allow easier testing of animations - it's actually quite easy to find the correct values for the x, y z axis by measuring the start and end-points of an aileron, for example, in your modelling app and then working out the appropriate values with a simple calculator. No need for a calculator in AC3D. Choose a vertex at either end point (there may be convenient ones, or insert them into the object, or use a line object). Use the axisx1-mz1-m/axis format. In AC3D select one vertex, and press the '' tile at 'Move to' (do NOT press 'Move to'). This will display the acute xyz cords in the adjacent windows. You can now copy and paste these values into the .xml animation, making sure that you transpose the y and z values, and reverse the sign of the new y. Repeat for the other vertex. And bingo. A little complicated but absolutely no computation involved, and the results are very accurate. Giving away trade secrets here, but seeing as it's you Lee :-) Vivian Excellent - even easier - Many thanks :) LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Appealing to MS Windows community
On Wednesday 05 Oct 2005 08:59, Erik Hofman wrote: Lee Elliott wrote: Heh:) ...the number of times I wish I had the wherewithal to make an animation tool - something that would allow me to test and reload model animations without having to run full FG to test each change. Especially something that would allow me to test undercarriage animations;) I know what you mean, the pain... Erik I can bear it:) LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Appealing to MS Windows community
On Tuesday 04 Oct 2005 09:18, Erik Hofman wrote: Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: The real question is: whether appealing to MS Windows community will benifit FlightGear? In my opinion, this is definately a yes. Just imagine all those MSFS users who have created scenery, aircrafts, etc. putting their effort into FlightGear instead. FlightGear's development would move at a much quicker pace than we do right now. If you want to attract those then there is little need to improve FlightGear itself, but there would be a need for a small number of support programs that make it easier to create FDM, 3d model, animation and sound configuration files. Erik Heh:) ...the number of times I wish I had the wherewithal to make an animation tool - something that would allow me to test and reload model animations without having to run full FG to test each change. Especially something that would allow me to test undercarriage animations;) LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Appealing to MS Windows community
On Wednesday 05 Oct 2005 00:46, Gerard ROBIN wrote: Le mercredi 05 octobre 2005 à 00:09 +0100, Lee Elliott a écrit : On Tuesday 04 Oct 2005 09:18, Erik Hofman wrote: Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: The real question is: whether appealing to MS Windows community will benifit FlightGear? In my opinion, this is definately a yes. Just imagine all those MSFS users who have created scenery, aircrafts, etc. putting their effort into FlightGear instead. FlightGear's development would move at a much quicker pace than we do right now. If you want to attract those then there is little need to improve FlightGear itself, but there would be a need for a small number of support programs that make it easier to create FDM, 3d model, animation and sound configuration files. Erik Heh:) ...the number of times I wish I had the wherewithal to make an animation tool - something that would allow me to test and reload model animations without having to run full FG to test each change. Especially something that would allow me to test undercarriage animations;) LeeE You are right Lee, we need it, but isn't it rather a plugin for 3D CAD (blender + simgear functions) ? Wll,, we don't _need_ it but it would be nice. I'm not sure a plugin is the right route to go as it would only work with specific 3d apps. While some new code would be needed the basis of everything is already in FG so I'm guessing that it would be mostly a case of stripping out all the unnecessary stuff to produce what would basically be a model viewer. So far, I'm just thinking in terms of a tool that would allow easier testing of animations - it's actually quite easy to find the correct values for the x, y z axis by measuring the start and end-points of an aileron, for example, in your modelling app and then working out the appropriate values with a simple calculator. For further thought though... the animation axis could be identified/defined using AC3D type 'line' objects. It would be pretty simple to align these with the intended animation axis in the modelling app and the two end-points would provide all the info necessary to animate the objects. ...At least I think it should work for rotation, spin and translation animations. De-selecting them in the model.xml config would make them invisible in FG. A lot of work for someone who knows how to do it and impossible for me:) LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flight plan and startup in air
On Thursday 29 Sep 2005 22:56, Mike Rawlins wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 07:09:06AM -0700, Mike Rawlins wrote: I've found it easier to enter the waypoints in the menu once airborne. And oddly, when I started the simulation with the flightplan initialized a moment ago, the rudder was in a position to command the aircraft toward the first waypoint, making steering down the runway impossible. Hitting control-c once disengages autopilot from flightplan and to a heading of 0 degrees, and hitting control-c again gets you back to manual control. I think it is a point in most check lists of auto pilot equipped airplanes:-) Before take off: ... Check autopilot - OFF I think there were a few accidents due to failure to do so... So I think this is a very realistic feature of FlightGear!! The question remains: How does one correctly use the flightplan that is entered from a file (command line option)? For my test I'm using the Fokker 100 jet. From what I can tell, the autopilot directs the plane to the first waypoint at startup. The waypoints from the flightplan file appear in the heads-up display. I can disengage the flightplan on the runway by clicking control-h twice. But then how does one engage it after takeoff? I see that the waypoints are still in the flightplan in pull-down menu after disengaging with control-h. Anyone else use the flightplan file for waypoints in this manner? Mike Use F6. This sets the A/P heading lock to 'true-heading-mode' and causes /autopilot/settings/true-heading-deg to be updated to the appropriate heading for the current waypoint, if any is set. If no waypoints have been entered you can set /autopilot/settings/true-heading-deg manually, either via the property browser, the A/P gui (there are some quirks, at least to my mind, in the way the A/P gui works) or by the - - cursor keys. When the A/P heading lock is set to 'true-heading-mode' the appropriate set of controllers in the A/P should engage and start steering the a/c. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Does anyone know of an f16-specific autopilot?
On Wednesday 28 Sep 2005 08:53, Erik Hofman wrote: Michael Matkovic wrote: Erik, What is your opinion on attempting to use the YF-23 autopilot with the F16? It would be great to have a working autopilot for the F-16. For me it doesn't matter if it comes from the YF-23 or for the J3cub :-) Erik I _think _ the YF-23 A/P is fairly straight-forward - I haven't looked at it for a long time - but apart from the additional controllers I think it's fairly generic in structure. Some of the stage 2 controllers, at the very least, will probably need re-tuning though. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] (OT) Google map fun
On Monday 01 Aug 2005 16:32, Darrell Blake wrote: An aeroplane? I think it's a U2. Either that or it's just a big red marker ;) From FAS... U-2s are based at Beale Air Force Base, Calif. and support national and tactical requirements from four operational detachments located throughout the world. U-2R/U-2S crew members are trained at Beale using three U-2ST aircraft. The a/c in the pic doesn't appear to be fitted with the 'Superpod' payload nacelles so it could well be a training flight. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] WARNING: Legacy engine definition in YASim
On Friday 29 Jul 2005 08:28, Dene Maxwell wrote: Thanks Lee, Had a look through the readme.yasim and the pa28-162.xml and sort of get the idea... rather than jump in and make a mistake i'll do some more comparisons with other single engined prop aircraft that DON'T cause the same error message and will then check with you with a proposed solution if that's OK with you? Regards Dene Hello Dene, I'll be happy to have a quick look if you want. What you could try doing is taking some performance notes before you make any changes and then check the performance after you've amended the config to check that it still seems to be flying ok. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] WARNING: Legacy engine definition in YASim
On Saturday 23 Jul 2005 04:53, Dene Maxwell wrote: Thanks for that Lee, So how do I fix it ? and does it explain the saved flight being loaded with the plane frozen? Cheers Dene Heh;) To fix it you have to take a look at the README.yasim doc in FlightGear/Docs... Which aircraft are you getting this message from? If it has a fairly simple engine model it shouldn't take much time or effort to update it and if the original developer isn't able to have a look at it I'll have a go. In any case, I believe that this isn't really an error but more of a reminder to the aircraft developer/maintainer. I don't think this will have anything to with the saved flight problem. I recall that there were some problems with the save/load flight stuff but I don't know if it has been fixed yet. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] WARNING: Legacy engine definition in YASim configuration file. Please fix.
On Sunday 17 Jul 2005 07:54, Dene Maxwell wrote: Hi, I'm a newbie to Flight Gear but not totally to Flight Simulators in general. I love this F/Sim and have flown around the entire south island of New Zealand ( although never did find Haast aerodrome). Whenever I start FG or load a saved file, I get this [subject above] message. When I load a saved file as well as getting this message the plane is frozen. TIA Dene [EMAIL PROTECTED] Which aircraft are you using? The format of the piston engine definition was changed at some point in the not-too-distant past and afair this message is output when the YASim solver spots one of the old 'legacy' piston engine definitions. It's more of a reminder that the engine definition needs updating rather than saying that there's a problem. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
On Wednesday 22 Jun 2005 15:48, Josh Babcock wrote: Josh Babcock wrote: Lee Elliott wrote: On Monday 20 Jun 2005 20:34, Josh Babcock wrote: Tell me which of your planes you would like to see improved. Ah - an easy question ;) All of them:))) No seriously, I'm pretty bad picking what I want to do. How about this: Canberra (how come it's not in CVS?) or TSR-2. You pick, I do the 3-D cockpit and any stray bells and whistles I can think of. They both have plenty of data out there including manuals available on CD. I'm still gonna do the B-47, I love that plane. Just not now, you guys are right, completing existing planes should be the priority. Josh ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d OK, fine. I'll do the Canberra. Three of them live around here, though on is at the Smithsonian and not on display. They don't let people look at those anymore. Unfortunately these are all RB-75 a's and b's which have the greenhouse cockpit. None of the american versions had the I8 cockpit layout but maybe I can get some useful data. At the least I can take some reference shots of the landing gear. Josh Great stuff - go to it:) I've got some photos of the nav and pilot positions that might help - I'll PM them to you. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
On Monday 20 Jun 2005 20:34, Josh Babcock wrote: Lee Elliott wrote: On Monday 20 Jun 2005 05:26, Andy Ross wrote: Josh Babcock wrote: I'm not sure how well YASim and JSBsim do transonics and supersonics. I think you could do a V-tail in JSBsim though. Not sure though. YASim doesn't currently have good support for high supersonic aircraft; both the engine models and the aerodynamics would need a few hacks. You can do a V tail, though. Give the hstab a big dihedral, and add a split input to model the rudder control hookups. Andy To Josh: have a look at the YF-23 for V-tail stuff. Regarding authentic panels cockpits - I'd be delighted if anyone wants to do real ones for any of the a/c I've done. I guess I'm more interested in the flight characteristics of various aircraft than actually flying them. I'd be very interested to see a B-36 and a B-47 - they're both in the 'very-unlikely-to-ever-happen' section of the list of a/c I'd like to do. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Well, conveniently I love realistic FDMs, but do not consider generating them fun. I rather enjoy working on the fdm configs and it can be frustrating at times but it's also very rewarding when it comes together. Tell me which of your planes you would like to see improved. Ah - an easy question ;) All of them:))) There are some specific things I want to sort out on some of them and complete overhauls on others. Don't have the time though and I want to keep my modelling skills up (one of those use it or loose skills imo) so that means doing new a/c (next prob a MiG-15 then an SU-27K) Also, feel absolutely free to develop a B-29 YASim config. The existing one does not even pretend to be realistic. Josh My approach to doing a YASim fdm config is to work from the 3d model when getting all your geometry data. This may not mean that the numbers are 100% accurate but they will be consistent with each other and in practice I think that the degree of variation from reality is less significant than the inaccuracies imposed by the constraints in YASim. This isn't intended as a knock at YASim at all - I like it a lot - but consider the Handly Page Victor, which had cresent shaped wimgs, for example, or the rounded wing tips on the B-29 for that matter. What you can do in YASim though is to tune it so that you can get close to the correct effect. Once I've done the geometry I plug in any hard factual data I've got e.g. wing incidence, dihedral etc. The rest is semi-educated guess-work and tuning 'till it seems to work right. I'll certainly have a look at the B-29 when you release it. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] next trick
On Monday 20 Jun 2005 21:17, Andy Ross wrote: Lee Elliott wrote: This isn't intended as a knock at YASim at all - I like it a lot - but consider the Handly Page Victor, which had cresent shaped wimgs, for example, or the rounded wing tips on the B-29 for that matter. If you really want to get fancy, you can simulate funny surfaces piecewise using extra vstab objects. But in practice, that's very unlikely to be useful. YASim isn't a fluid dynamics simulator, which is basically required for turning details like wing planform or airfoil shapes into actual performance data. And in practice that kind of shape data needs to be far (!) more accurate than a typical 3D model polygon mesh. If you have the software and the micro-detailed mesh, then that's clearly the way to go. But for interactive flight simulation, it's just a non-starter. In principle (modulo bugs and configuration glitches, obviously) a well-configured YASim model generates aerodynamic results that are about as good as you can get without access to the original design plans or test data. Andy mstabs are probably better for wings;) Actually, I did the Canberra wing using both a wing object and an mstab object. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: Re: Re: the --jpg-httpd option
On Friday 17 Jun 2005 18:05, Jon Elson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ..to make formation flight realistic, we also need to model downwash and wing tip vortices. Meanwhile, have fun and join in developing it. ;o) Jetwash too. From what I understand, that can really ruin a nice formation. Oh, you seem to be experts. I can imagine what effect jetwash has (fast hot air surrounded by stagnant cold air). But what consequence do wing tip vortices have to the aircraft? Does it mean to have more aerodynamic resistance at a specific amount of speed? There's a pretty famous story of some C-130 (I think) pilots who rode through a 747's wingtip vortices about 2 miles ahead of them. Their aircraft was totally destroyed, did about 5 rolls, and they were barely able to get it on the ground in one piece. I think the wing spar partially broke during the landing, and the wingtips were just about touching the ground when they stopped. They were very skillful in remaining airborne until they punched through the other side of the vortices without causing complete failure of the airframe. So, the wingtip vortices have been describes as awesome horizontal tornadoes! There's a picture that was in the Smithsonian/Air Space magazine a couple of years ago, of an Ag Cat with red dye in the sprayers, and it painted a 3-d picture of the vortices trailing it. It was totally awesome, the vortices formed a pair of counterrotating funnels whose diameter a little behind the tail were equal to the length of each wing! Here's some related photos : http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/B-727/HTML/ECN-3831.htm l http://www.professionalpilot.ca/aerodynamics/drag/induced.htm I'm still looking for that AirSpace photo on the web. Jon I believe that the fatal crash of a DH Venom at the Biggin Hill 2001 display was attributed to the vortices left by the Vixen performing in the same display. Apparently the Venom's flight control surfaces (ailerons) had insufficient effect to counter the Vixen's vortices. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] fgfs start error
On Friday 03 Jun 2005 00:01, Sid Boyce wrote: Sid Boyce wrote: fgfs: freeglut_window.c:300: fgOpenWindow: Assertion `window-Window.VisualInfo != ((void *)0)' failed. Aborted I've tried both the SuSE 9.3 freeglut and one I bult from cvs sources. Regards Sid. I forgot to add that I'm using the Nvidia 7174 driver with a FX5500 and kernel 2.6.12-rc5. Regards Sid. Although not related to the specific problems you're having, quite a few people have had problems in FGFS using the 71xx drivers and have reverted to the 6629 driver. There's also a patch for this driver to enable it to be compiled on 2.6.11 kernels - haven't tried it with 2.6.12 though. Info about the patch is available at http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=46676 (Thanks to Melchior F on the dev list for posting that) LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Query about Scenery Load
On Monday 11 April 2005 10:02, senthil kumar wrote: Hai, I have a doubt related to the scenery. I have fixed my camera as a top view of aircraft (500 m Camera position from aircraft) and there is no rotation for camera. Now the aircraft is in 1000 m height and I want to know if aircraft position is x (lat), y (lon) whats the latlon value at each edge of the screen? Bye M.Senthil Kumar If I understand you correctly, you have set up a down-facing camera/view that is 500m above the aircraft. With no rotations or offsets the camera/view will be 'aiming' at the current lat/lon of the aircraft, which you can obtain from the property tree. I'm not aware of any built-in functions that would allow you to simply 'read-off' the lat/lon co-ordinates of each corner of the view so I think you will have to calculate this. However, I believe that in FlightGear, the Earth is not modelled as a simple sphere but as a pretty accurate oblate spheroid that conforms to established standards and I've also seen mention of routines within the FG/SimGear code base to handle the FG geodesy so you might find that the tools you need to calculate what you need to know are already present. Sorry I can't help you more - it's not really my area of expertise (not that I claim any;)) p.s. hmm... it's just occurred to me that you might find the data you want in the OpenGL stuff... ...any developers out there got any ideas? LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Air traffic at LAX
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 06:19, Pete wrote: Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: Let's have some sound to go with it: http://audio.liveatc.net:8010/kont.m3u Or this: http://www.lowapproach.com/socalapproach.ram Ampere ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Is there anything like this for Chicagoland/KORD? They do cover a few more airports - see: http://www.passur.com/sites.htm LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] FlightGear slow under Linux maximized window/ hardware upgrade recommendation
On Sunday 20 March 2005 00:49, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:17:39 -0600, Andrzej wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ..you cut your colors from 32bit to 16bit, ATI's cards are all 24bit, how are your 24bit framerates? My ASUS GeForce 2 Ti 32 MB gives following results (using --geometry 1024x768): 1. Windows 2K with NVidia provided drivers (on of the latest FG I believe 0.98 taken from the website a few months ago): -16 bit (High Color) - 43-45 FPS -32 bit (so called True Color) - 25-42 FPS (it drops to 25 or even more when the horizon is very far) ..24 bit on this? Nvidea didn't do ATI's 24bit cheat, so their 24bit numbers should line up with either your 16 or 32 bit figure, and not hold the middle ground like ATI, which tries to with their cheat, which has their 16bit look better and their 32bit, like 24bit. 2. Linux Mandrake 10.0 with kernel 2.4 and rather older NVidia driver (FG compiled out of the cvs a few days ago): -16 bit - 62-77 FPS -24 bit - 38-47 FPS ..and with the new drivers? Some old Nvidea might even work with DRI. Note that Windows does not give an option to run 24-bit (I am not sure what 32-bit/True Color means either) and Linux that 32-bit. ..chances are 24bit isn't possible on this combination of OS, HW and drivers. Interestingly, the sound under Linux and 16-bit mode got strangely interrupts. Under Linux 24-bit it I do not see (or rather hear :-) that effect. Using a 32 bpp display mode doesn't give more colours than a 24 bpp display mode - it just adds an 8 bpp alpha layer to go along with the 8 bit R, G B channels. When 24 bpp data is viewed using a 16 bpp display mode the least significant bits from the R, G B channels are discarded. Iirc, 3 bits are dropped from the R B channels and 2 bits from the G channel. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] help with ATI fglrx
On Thursday 03 March 2005 04:45, Stefan Lucian Palade wrote: Hello everyone !! Josh your problem is coming from the module owner as you can see in the lsmod listing the owner of the module ( to be read the father of process in linux ) has the owner id : 7 ... what you have to do is edit the startup config. file so the module is inserted at start-up with the owner id 0(root) ... Also if this is not working it will be usefull if I can see the .config file from kernel menuconfig. It could be the DRI suport from the kernel. Send us the file ( it should have around 50Kb). Good Luck !!! = Stefan Palade My fglrx module is used by 8. If this is a UID, on my system it corresponds to the user 'mail'. Incidentally, so is the soundcore module. But both seem to work ok. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] help with ATI fglrx
On Tuesday 01 March 2005 22:33, Josh Babcock wrote: [snip...] I wonder if it's being loaded by the startup scripts or the kernel before X even starts. I guess I will have to turn off X and restart to check. Josh Hmm... I just had another look at your lsmod o/p to check if if the agpgart module was being used and it looks like it is - by via_agp. I'm using an via chipset mobo too but I compile the via chipset support into the kernel as opposed to agpgart support, which I compile as a module. I dunno if this gets you anywhere but it might be worth trying. Do you have POSIX shared memory support enabled? This comes under Virtual memory filesystem support (former shm fs). I believe this is required for the ATI drivers. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] help with ATI fglrx
On Monday 28 February 2005 22:23, Josh Babcock wrote: OK, this is making me feel kind of stupid. I never really had any problem with the fglrx driver before, but now I'm a bit stumped. I just completely rebuilt my system to take advantage of LVM and the deb package system as well as to upgrade to 2.6.10. Now, I seem to have fglrx working, but alas, 1 FPS in FG. dmesg reports *lots* of these: [fglrx:firegl_agp_lock_pages] *ERROR* agp_allocate_memory_phys_list failed Has anyone else seen this problem? Oh, to avoid confusion, the kernel and fglrx module did not come from a deb repository, I built them by hand. I just don't find the debian build process sane. I also held the Xfree packages so libGL.so wouldn't get clobbered. Josh Gory details below... [snipped...] Are you using the internal ATI agpgart or the 2.6.10 kernel module? I have the line Option UseInternalAGPGART yes in my XF86Config-4 and the kernel agpgart module is not loaded on my system (2.4.27) so I'm guessing that you're using the 2.6.10 kernel module. Afaik, the ATI drivers aren't claimed to be 2.6.x compatible yet - but then I haven't checked them recently. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] help with ATI fglrx
On Tuesday 01 March 2005 21:41, Josh Babcock wrote: Lee Elliott wrote: On Monday 28 February 2005 22:23, Josh Babcock wrote: OK, this is making me feel kind of stupid. I never really had any problem with the fglrx driver before, but now I'm a bit stumped. I just completely rebuilt my system to take advantage of LVM and the deb package system as well as to upgrade to 2.6.10. Now, I seem to have fglrx working, but alas, 1 FPS in FG. dmesg reports *lots* of these: [fglrx:firegl_agp_lock_pages] *ERROR* agp_allocate_memory_phys_list failed Has anyone else seen this problem? Oh, to avoid confusion, the kernel and fglrx module did not come from a deb repository, I built them by hand. I just don't find the debian build process sane. I also held the Xfree packages so libGL.so wouldn't get clobbered. Josh Gory details below... [snipped...] Are you using the internal ATI agpgart or the 2.6.10 kernel module? I have the line Option UseInternalAGPGART yes [snip] Nope, I've got it set to yes. If I recall, using the kernel module led to fglrx spewing all sorts of errors in the X log and X falling back to Mesa. I also think I should note that even though I have FB support in my kernel config, using the line: Option UseFBDev true in XF86Config-4 results in X failing to load, with complaints from fglrx about not being able to access the frame buffer. This is really the same X config that I had working before. I think I either did something stupin in my kernel config or there is some change in the code causing a new problem. Thanks, Josh Hmm... the fact that the agpgart module is loaded on your system seems to imply that the ATI internal agpgart isn't being used. Dunno why though. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] User question
On Wednesday 09 February 2005 18:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm running flightgear 9.8 on WIN XP. No problems installing, running, loading scenery, after a little trial and error. I am using the keyboard only and having a few problems. B-314, how do you get it out of the water? I can only get up to about 45 unless I go off a cliff or up and down a hill (island). Concorde, I can't get it to go faster than 400 even with the after burner on for a long period of time. Long flights, attempting to fly from PHNL to KSFO, any aircraft, 747, B-52, Concorde, B-314, etc. I climb to cruising altitude, reduce throttle and set autopilot to KSFO way point. About halfway the plane goes crazy and crashes? Ray McNeice I'm not sure about the other a/c but the B-52F should be able to do it - I've done longer flights in testing. What altitude and speed (mach) are you cruising at and how much fuel are you starting off with? LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: Flying Helicopters ?
You could try wine-x... It's supposed to be very good and was targeted at gaming. Haven't tried it myself, of course... LeeE On Wednesday 26 January 2005 15:01, Josh (Norm) Audette wrote: VMWare's graphics driver won't be able to use accelerated graphics. You can try, but I doubt you'll get more than a couple of frames a second. It would be a shame to spend money on VMWare just for that. OTOH if you have VMWare already it'd be a good thing to try and let us know how it works. I can suggest trying dual-boot instead. Installing Windows on VMWare will take just as much hard drive space on the VMWare virtual disk as it would on a dual-boot disk. The big disadvantage is that the dual-boot system won't have access to your linux filesystem when in Windows so you won't be able to share scenery. If you need help with managing partitions, I can offer some advice as I've successfully done partition resizing before. My biggest piece of advice, right off the bat, is BACK UP YOUR DATA before you try anything of the sort. If you want help with this feel free to message me off-list. Cheers, Josh -- Vincent Trouilliez wrote: Just try it with Wine. I suppose it might work. I have bought it about two years ago in no-name shop for five bucks I believe. I have never managed to get anything with Wine, but the 'notepad' ! :-/ I think I will think big, and try to set up WMware. Vince ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Airplanes
On Tuesday 04 January 2005 12:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is my question as well. I understand the Space Shuttle was available, but doesn't appear on 0.9.6 in WinXP. Also, how do you close the cockpit canopy on the YF-22 simm - it stays open throughout flights. The parking brake controls the YF-23 canopy - when the parking brake is set the canopy opens and when it's off the canopy closes. Looks like you may have taken off with the parking brake set:) The parking brake is toggled by hitting the 'b' key or by clicking on the green 'BRAKE' indicator/instrument on the 2D panels. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Airplanes
On Tuesday 04 January 2005 18:52, Andrew Midosn wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, how do you close the cockpit canopy on the YF-22 simm - it stays open throughout flights. Ooh, ooh - I think I know the answer to this one! I believe that the cockpit canopy is linked to the parking brake - so if you release the brake the canopy should close, and applying the brake will cause the canopy to open again. Although, if this is right, I'm not sure how you're managing to get airborne with the parking brake applied! :-) Regards Andrew While the parking brake will hold the a/c against the wind, or taxiing thrust, the max thrust available: 49000lbs (dry) 7lbs (reheat) is going to be enough to overcome the max possible friction of the locked wheels ( MTOW is 56000lbs). Just for info, the max thrust of the YASim AN-225 (30lbs) will break the u/c if applied at MTOW with the parking brake on (In real life the AN-225 cannot actually taxi at MTOW - the u/c can cope with the straight take off roll, of course, but you can't turn corners on the ground). LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Playstation 2 Linux
On Wednesday 29 December 2004 18:13, Andy Ross wrote: Ethan Price wrote: I was looking at the playstation 2 linux kit on ebay (it is now discontiuned) and was wondering if anyone knew 1.Will a redhat linux distribution of FG (according to the PS2 linux community the linux software is comparable to Redhat linux 0.7) work at all, and 2. should I expect FG to work well? The ps2 is designed for games/software exactly like FG so logic says that FG should run fine. [I think most of the info below is roughly correct, but I'm no expert. It's possible I'm confusing some of this with the XBox/Linux port, about which I also know very little.] The PS2 graphics engine is a custom deal involving a separate CPU. I don't believe anyone (anywhere, including Sony?) has written an OpenGL driver for it, so that's a showstopper right there. I think the X11 port works in dumb framebuffer mode, with no hardware 3D support. And then there's the problem that the box has only 32MB or RAM, total. FlightGear's binary alone is something like 8MB of program text, and it uses huge chunks of memory for textures and terrain tiles. It won't fit without some major surgery. Andy More a heads up than a comment about the PS2 - but now might be a good time to start thinking about running FG on mpp or clustered systems. The Cell processor scheme that Sony is working on may well introduce mpp into the home. If it's cheap enough, there'll be a need for compute-farm friendly apps. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list Flightgear-users@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] C172P panel now hacked
On Saturday 18 December 2004 22:14, Dave Martin wrote: I've done most of what I intended with the 172P now except for the landing/taxi lights on the wing (I'm having to learn a lot to get something looking good). I wanted everything to 'just work' so I re-added the alpha-layers to the textures which were transparent (you could see the panel thru the wings, seats, tail etc). Also added back the flap textures so you now see the ribs. In doing the interior texture I discovered that due to the panel sharing a texture with the interior, adding the alpha back made the panel invisible. So, I duplicated the interior texture with no alpha and applied that to just the panel and then applied the second texture to the interior with the alpha - This works fine, now the controls do not show the instruments behind. However - this is a bit of a 'hack' - is it acceptable? Also, I've reworked the panel instrument locations so they are now proportionally correct compared to a real 172. I did start on a C-172 3d model, with a view to using LODs with high-res parts for the stuff you see from the cockpit i.e. windows, front cowling etc. I can't remember exactly how far I got with it but you're welcome to a copy if you wish. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] NASA Worldwind
On Friday 10 December 2004 09:00, Erik Hofman wrote: Chris Metzler wrote: He/she may have, but have whitelisted the wrong thing. IOW, he/she may have whitelisted flightgear-users in the From: header rather than in List-Id: or Reply-To:. The frustrating thing to me is that, having subscribed, this person can't be paying too much attention to the list, or they'd have noticed these discussions. So obviously they're not following this list too closely. This person has asked a question once and stated he is of older age, so maybe he isn't even sure how to stop this stuff from happening. I think the problem is his provider and not himself. Erik I think you're probably right - the name 'safe-mail' is suggestive in itself. The implication of these messages is that anything that's posted to the user list, by someone who gets one of these auto-responses, isn't getting delivered to the user. The user will only be seeing stuff posted by people who have registered themselves, or who have been registered by some other mechanism. While I agree that it's the provider here that's really causing the problem, and not the user, I think we can assume that the safe-mail.net admins have intentionally set up this auto-responder this way and as far as they're concerned it's working just fine - it's free advertising after all - so I doubt that individuals telling them that they're being a mite inconsiderate will have much effect. Perhaps an 'official' complaint from the FG org might be listened to, or alternatively we could try to help this user sort it out if he isn't able to do it himself. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] NASA Worldwind
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 20:02, Paul Surgeon wrote: [snip...] Just out of interest has anyone ever done a poll to find out who uses what OS for FG? It would be interesting and possibly useful info to see what OS's are the most popular for FG especially amongst the developer community. Paul Debian unstable on all my systems. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] NASA Worldwind
On Thursday 09 December 2004 18:58, Lee Elliott wrote: On Wednesday 08 December 2004 20:02, Paul Surgeon wrote: [snip...] Just out of interest has anyone ever done a poll to find out who uses what OS for FG? It would be interesting and possibly useful info to see what OS's are the most popular for FG especially amongst the developer community. Paul Debian unstable on all my systems. LeeE BTW, is everyone who posts to this list still getting spammed by [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am and it's a real pita. Any chance of removing this 'user' until they start behaving in a more considerate manner? LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Problems with flightgear 0.9.6 onWinXP/RADEON9800PRO
On Wednesday 24 November 2004 13:08, francisco.rinaldo1 wrote: Hi all I´ve had the same problem, but not with all airplanes. For example if istart the program choosing T38 or Piper the program works nice. However if i try to start the program whith A4, A10 and others I haqve to start Two programs at the same time, this will result in two Flightgear screens running and I just close one and enjoy the game. So, if it is a sound card problem why it works nice if i open two programs ?. It really works all the time. Best regards. It seems like the problem is dependent on the aircraft chosen - strange. Could you make a list of which aircraft work ok and which ones don't? LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Proprietary information (was Re: [Flightgear-users] How to build a plane from scratch...)
On Monday 01 November 2004 15:48, David Megginson wrote: On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 11:46:05 -0400, Enrique Vaamonde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand the implications of using copyrighted or propietary information to create a model, however I am just using this information as reference for my work and intend to keep it that way. That sounds entirely reasonable. All the best, David This issue came up once before when we were discussing map data. I think the conclusion is that data cannot be copyrighted but a specific presentation of that data can be copyrighted. In the case of the maps I think it was established that it's ok to use the raw data available on the map, e.g. elevations etc, but it's not ok to copy the actual map. This was because it would be possible for anyone with a hand-held gps to go out and establish those elevations and locations for themselves. A similar situation would apply with an aircraft, insofar as it would be possible to obtain an aircraft and get the data yourself. The only problem that might arise is if the data for a particular aircraft is classified/restricted, either by a government or the manufacturer. This wouldn't be covered by copyright though. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] New Livery for 747
On Friday 29 October 2004 08:43, Erik Hofman wrote: Paul Surgeon wrote: I'm in favour of larger textures. Even my old 128MB Ti4200 sits with an almost empty bank of video RAM when running FlightGear. Even the original Geforce can handle 2048x2048 with the correct drivers! However I think we should still support the older hardware with fallback textures and have some way of setting the texture detail level of the aircraft like is done in MSFS so that the user can pick their performance level. plib already scales down textures to fit them into the maximum allowed texture size. So that shouldn't be a problem. Erik That's interesting to know (and possibly explains a few things I've observed). If 2048x2048 textures aren't going to be a problem I'll start using them (not that it'll make my textures much better but at least it would make the panel lines finer:) thought_to_selfconsider ray-tracing the textures - that way I can use multiple texture maps, including procedural ones/thought_to_self LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] New Livery for 747
On Thursday 28 October 2004 03:17, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: This guy is quick: http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_mesgforum=198top ic_id=339mesg_id=339page= Ampere The textures look well done - better than anything I've managed. It's good news to see people getting interested in doing re-paints of FG a/c... ...but it means I'll have to give more consideration to 're-paintability'. What's the current consensus on texture sizes? I'm currently limiting my textures to 1024x1024 but I'd like to use larger textures if it would be acceptable. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] classifying development status of aircraftextending fgrun (was: Flyable aircraft)
Arrgghh!! I don't mind top-posting or bottom-posting, but not alternating:) So just to really muck it up I'll in-line my responses:) Anyway... On Friday 22 October 2004 14:22, Giles Robertson wrote: This produces some interesting problems. I've hacked up a script to show dependencies between a/c (it's currently very, very bad, so I won't mislead anyone with the results), and thinking about a/c installation brings up some quite odd problems. 1) If we split each a/c into its own directory, then there is a lot of duplication. There's only a lot of duplication while stuff is 'borrowed' between aircraft. Ultimately, the goal must be for each aircraft to have it's own authentic instruments etc. and then the duplication problem disappears. 2) If we keep a/cs interdependent, then we could face versioning hell. For example, the T38 maintainer changes the directory structure for the T38, breaking the 737 (which is dependent on the T38). In that case, a simple packaging system would have to require that the user hold two copies of the T38 package (if the user wanted an up to date T38) - one that was 737 compatible, and the latest T38 version. This seems undesirable, and I do not relish debugging a user's setup when he or she has multiple versions of the same package. There's no need for a 'versioning hell' situation. It would be pretty easy to come up with a versioning scheme that would be easy for the developers to work with. It would need some thought of course... :) A more complicated packaging system could work out that the update broke the 737, copy the required files to the 737 package, and then introduce a dependency on the T38 that read: Interdependencies between different a/c designs, as opposed to models or versions, have got to be a big no-no. For multiple versions, or models, within a basic design, the responsibility must rest with the a/c developer. If user has 737 installed, 737 version must be x, but 737 is not required for T38 to run. This is a particularly odd dependency, in that it isn't a dependency at all; more something to limit the damage on the rest of the users setup. Furthermore, there would be no easy way of removing that dependency; it would remain in perpetuity to provide backwards compatibility. Also, if the T38 was reorganised again, it would be nontrivial to reintroduce the dependency of the 737 on the T38. The result of this scenario is a duplication of files, without removing a dependency (just replacing it with a weirder one). Iterate this process over many a/c over many years, and you should have a situation where most a/c are self contained, but there is a pile of old, weird dependencies lying around, which brings us back to situation 1). 3) I think, however, that there is a middle way. We already have shared resources - the Instruments, Instruments-3d and Generic folders - and if we shift commonly used files to a general resource, and are careful how we update that, we can eliminate much of the waste of duplication. Such a system would require that no a/c be dependent on any other a/c, but would allow any a/c to use the shared resources. I'll start looking at which files are good candidates to be moved to a shared folder. Giles Robertson IMO, all of these problems are due to the development state of FG (0.9.x). Currently, the most important thing is to get the program working right. Then worry about packaging it - no point in having a beautifully packaged bit of software that doesn't work... ;) LeeE -Original Message- From: Lee Elliott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 21/10/2004 19:06 To: FlightGear user discussions Cc: Subject: Re: [Flightgear-users] classifying development status of aircraftextending fgrun (was: Flyable aircraft) On Thursday 21 October 2004 18:57, Lee Elliott wrote: On Thursday 21 October 2004 03:05, Boris Koenig wrote: Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: One of the problems, as I pointed out earlier, is that the download size of the base package is a bit on the huge size. fully agreed, that's something most people seem to complain about - on the other hand it's fairly small to be honest - if you compare it to other simulators like MSFS, X-Plane etc. - so having a full simulator by downloading less than 100 MB data, sounds okay to me. On the other hand the scenery is still a whole different matter, and my example doesn't take into account that FG's scenery is made available separately. Also, if you are merely updating your package and suffering from a low bandwidth connection, you could still check out tardiff: http://tardiff.sourceforge.net Stewart Steven have just recently created new patches for the latest FG base package version, so it might be worth to give it a try if downloading another 80 MB does not appeal to anybody here ;-) Even though these patches
Re: [Flightgear-users] How to reload 3d panel
On Thursday 30 September 2004 16:27, Josh Babcock wrote: Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote: On Wednesday 29 September 2004 08:41 pm, Horst J. Wobig wrote: Anyway... panel reload does not work for me - what am I doing wrong? AFAIK the panel reload only reloads the 2d panel. The 3d panel I believe is part of the 3d aircraft model. The 3d panel of the defaut Cessna is actually a 2d panel that is pasted into the 3d aircraft model. I think that reloading of the 3d aircraft model, and thus the 3d cockpit, would be a useful feature for aircraft creators. Since this is only a part of the model, and part of the object tree, could there be a function to reload any node in the model (or world)? This would make debugging arbitrary parts of models much easier, and would carry over to 3d cockpits. Josh Being able to re-load models would be very useful re sorting out animations too. I imagine it's not trivial though... LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Control problem with FlightGear 0.9.5
On Sunday 12 September 2004 13:50, louis holleman wrote: Well, after upgrading to 0.9.6 I have found the following: when taking off in the 172, I still need to manipulate the stick too much to my appreciation, then I can engage the AP on HDG and VS or ALT. The same as in 0.9.5, but whilst doing a tour around Frisco (nice scenery in the default stuff, this is exactly why I appreciate FG so much) I also discovered lotsa turbulence in the mountains area. Went back to KSFO and did some new settings on the environment: turned wind to only 1 kt at ground level, no turbulence and took off once more. Same stuff, then to the AP for HDG and ALT and flew towards San Jose. Somewhere over the bay I turned the AP off and much to my amazement the plane flew straight and level without me touching any control. Operating the stick would do exactly what I'm experiencing with Fly or Propilat, i.e. an a/c which is easy to handle (this was in speed ranges between 85 and 120 kts). Appearently also the cursor arrow keys have some effect and joystick handling is dead easy. So I engaged the AP for APP to rwy28R which it did perfectly, only needed to flare manually before the final touchdown. What I also haven't seen sofar is the odd behaviour whilst flying on AP (HDG and ALT) at irregular times the Cessna would pull up steeply, go into a stall, dive out of it again and catching up again on AP (without any manual interruption). Flew from Amsterdam to Orly yesterday (still on 0.9.5 then) and that happened about 8 times... So is it the new version? At least now I'm starting to really enjoy FG, gotta check out the other birds too for their behaviour. Louis (who is glad he upgraded first thing to 0.9.6) While sorting out an update for the ComperSwift I realised that the AP menu and keyboard assignations don't match. E.g. hitting Ctrl-s to engage auto throttle sets /autopilot/locks/speed = 'speed-with-throttle' whereas selecting the Autothrottle option from the Auto Pilot Settings Dialogue creates an /autopilot/locks/auto-throttle = '1' entry. The gui keyboard mappings really need to be reconciled, even though it brings us back to the thorny issue of k/b mappings... LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Problem with Flightgear on Debian Testing/Unstable (installed from .deb)
On Wednesday 21 July 2004 16:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey all, I installed Flightgear 0.94 from Debian unstable, doing an apt-get install flightgear. I got no error message on the installation. When I go to run flightgear (/usr/games/fgfs) I get the following error message: fgfs: /usr/lib/libGL.so.1: no version information available (required by fgfs) Segmentation fault Where do I look to try and resolve this problem? Anyone else running flighgear on Debian testing/unstable? I know there are a few people here using Debian but I think most of us are using the cvs version and not the Debian packages. I've just had a look at my system here and I noticed that I have a dangling smlink for libGL.so in /usr/lib... ...but libGL.so.1, which here is symlinked to libGL.so.1.2, is included in the xlibmesa-gl package. I should point out that I'm having to use a funny combination of XFree86 Vn 4.3.x versions to get my ATI vid card working (nearly) properly with my 3d app. I'd still expect libGL.so.1 to be in xlibmesa-gl in the current dfsg XFree86 package. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
Re: [Flightgear-users] Problem starting in locations other than KSFO
On Wednesday 16 June 2004 07:17, Erik Hofman wrote: Lee Elliott wrote: On Monday 14 June 2004 08:38, Chris Metzler wrote: On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 16:41:16 +0100 Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The old scheme doesn't work here. Bit of a pita w/r to Atlas, which doesn't seem to like symlinks. I haven't tried leaving everything in Scenery/ yet, and symlinking to Scenery/Terrain/ to see if that works. Sorry, I'm not understanding this. Are you saying that having moved everything but the structures from Scenery/ to Scenery/Terrain/ has broken Atlas somehow? It seems so, at least when I tried re-generating some new Atlas maps after downloading some of the new scenery. It's quite probable. This kind of changes has it's effects on other projects (fgrun and fgsd probably also). But in the end I think the current setup is easier for all projects. Erik Oh yes - the new hierarchy is more flexible - good move IMHO :) :) LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
Re: [Flightgear-users] Where/how can I download Feb 14 build of FlightGear data - cannot run on OSX 10.3
On Monday 22 March 2004 21:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, After trying a number of options I'm stumped at trying to get FlightGear running under OSX. Initially, after getting 'bus errors' I discovered Jonathan Polley's patched executable fgfs.stripped at:- http://mail.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-users/2004-February/007253. html He wrote that he got this working with a Feb 14 release of the data package. I tried to run it with the 0.9.3 data package under the OSX section of the site and it gives this error after getting to the splash screen: YOU HAVE AN INCOMPATIBLE CFG FILE FOR THIS AIRCRAFT. RESULTS WILL BE UNPREDICTABLE !! Current version needed is: 1.61 You have version: 1.60 So, I went to the CVS browser on the web and downloaded a tarball of the current snapshot of the data directory, but if I run with this (using the default compiled binary exe or Jonathon's) I get... Base package check failed ... Found version 0.9.4 at: /Applications/FlightGear/FlightGear-0.9.3/data Please upgrade to version: 0.9.3 Can anyone suggest a way out fo this? I am reluctant to download and compile the source because, from what I've read, it doesn't look that straight forward on a mac. Is there a way I can download a Feb 14 snapshot of the data package which compiled OK with Jonathon's exe? Any help appreciated, Matt The February-2004 binaries should work 'mostly' ok with the 0.9.4 base package - I think a February 0.9.3 binary will incorporate the latest AP changes, which will be compatible with the latest 0.9.4 base, so you could just edit the 'version' file in the base package to change it to 0.9.3 to get it to work. I _think_ most of the recent changes to the base package won't cause severe problems with a slightly older binary. Worth a try, perhaps, to get an idea of what FG's like. Watch out to see if I'm corrected though:) LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: airfields in United Kingdom
On Saturday 28 February 2004 23:50, John Michaels wrote: The An225 seems to ignore the autopilot for altitude control and I have to fly it with the joystick jammed hard forward once it's in the air. Hmm... strange - works here;) What is the aircraft doing before you engage altitude hold i.e. what altitude, speed and bank, and what does it do once you have engaged it? Have you changed the altitude hold target-setting - that is, is the atitude at which the a/c should be held still set to 3000ft? LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: B-52 aerobatics
On Sunday 18 January 2004 09:06, Erik Hofman wrote: James Briggs wrote: On Friday 16 January 2004 00:12, C Sanjayan Rosenmund wrote: Actually, it stalls properly when you try to roll it. when it gets close to 90 degrees of bank, it stalls. Period. that is true to the characteristics of the actual bird. There was an AF Colnel that got himself killed (along with his crew, and a VIP pasenger) because he would not stay within the safety limits of the aircraft. He had a stated intention of being the first to roll a B-52. . . No one would fly with him, given a choice. . . for good reason. Airfoils stall according to angle of attack, not airplane bank angle. So a good acro pilot with the correct entry speed could probably do an aileron roll ok in any airplane, or a barrel roll. A snap roll could exceed the category limitations for the aircraft. Looking at the B-52's shape I guess we can safely say that this aircraft won't produce much lift with 90 degrees roll. That and the fact that the surface of the vertical tail is huge, I guess one would see the windscreen area filled with ground surface rather quickly. Erik I've got a poor quality video clip of the prototype 707 being rolled (includes an 'interesting' take-off too), with a commentary by it's test pilot, Tex Johnson. But although the basic proportions and configurations of the 707 and the B-52 look similar (apart from low-wing vs. high-wing, and dihedral vs. slight anhedral), the B-52 wing is set at 6 deg incidence, whereas the 707 wing looks much flatter set (I don't know the actual value), and I wonder if that extra 6 deg, or so of incidence, along with the different dihedral, might make the crucial difference. I suspect the B-52 wings are less rigid than the 707 wings too, but I've no hard evidence for that. While researching the B-52, I found no references to it ever being rolled, but then that doesn't prove anything:) LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
Re: [Flightgear-users] What am I good for? ( An offer to giveback to FG)
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 02:32, C Sanjayan Rosenmund wrote: Jon Berndt wrote: I will repeat Curt's statement that testing is always valuable. In my daytime job (which involves prototyping and testing upgrades to space shuttle flight software), testing is critical. Methodically testing each aircraft for performance, at the edges of the envelope, etc. and reporting the results would be quite useful. In fact (for JSBSim aircraft) our web site has a bug tracking mechanism. I can't recall if there is something similar for FlightGear, but recording bugs and feature requests there is appreciated. Jon OK, at the start, my testing was intended to provide feedback on basic function (do the panels match the aircraft, does the aircraft fly reasonably, do the flight parameters show up on the model correctly, do the controls actually *work*, etc). I suppose that over time as my skills improve (they are bound to as I spend more time on the 'stick), I will be pushing the envelope more. . .particularly in performance aircraft (fighters and such). . . I will likely *not* be trying to roll a B-52. . .(though, if I can, that would show a fault in the FDM for that bird). . . OK, I have two questions: What format would be best to return the results in? Does anyone have any recomendations on a good joystick to use with analog CH pedals (gameport)? While feedback can be helpful, some considerations should be bourn in mind, with regard to aircraft performance. For example, with the B-52, in practice you certainly wouldn't want to roll it, but the flight data model describes an aerodynamic model that isn't constrained by constructional considerations. For example, the B-52 has enough power to far exceed it's max low level speed, but it would flutter itself to pieces before running out of thrust. This sort of thing isn't handled in FG. Yet... ;) LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
[Flightgear-users] Nice screen-grab :)
Hello Erik, Nice screen-grab you have up on simscreens.net ;) LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
Re: [Flightgear-users] My screen shot.
On Friday 14 November 2003 14:07, Jon Stockill wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Frederic BOUVIER wrote: Erik Hofman wrote: Sacha Schlegel wrote: Hi Erik Is the Golden Gate Bridge in the latest version of the terrain? It is in the latest version of the base package. You won't get the static scenery when downloading the scenery from the flightgear webpage. We should find a way to automatically include existing static model in the scenery generation process. I thought we'd managed to bypass that problem? You can have a seperate directory with a scenery tree which just contains the statics in the stg files, and specify *both* scenery directories. If we standardised the directory then we could ship all the models in the base package, and if anyone installed new scenery the static models would still be loaded. -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] :) I think we came up with at least a couple of 'good' solutions when it was last discussed, but there're only so many coders out there to implement the stuff;) quietly moves aside and starts muttering about poly counts and texturing techniques ;) LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
Re: [Flightgear-users] My screen shot.
On Saturday 15 November 2003 00:29, David Megginson wrote: Lee Elliott writes: I thought we'd managed to bypass that problem? You can have a seperate directory with a scenery tree which just contains the statics in the stg files, and specify *both* scenery directories. If we standardised the directory then we could ship all the models in the base package, and if anyone installed new scenery the static models would still be loaded. I think we came up with at least a couple of 'good' solutions when it was last discussed, but there're only so many coders out there to implement the stuff;) It's implemented -- it's just that nobody's moved the files yet. All the best, David An example of just one of the things I like about this project:) LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
Re: [Flightgear-users] Frame rate on a 850MHz Athlon
On Tuesday 04 November 2003 21:51, Jonathan Richards wrote: On Tuesday 04 Nov 2003 7:02 pm, Lee Elliott wrote: snip What is the effect of adding --build to ./configure? I already set the appropriate -march, -mfpmath and -msse flags for compilation - does the --build option just invoke some of these flags or does it do something else? LeeE I just tried it... # make clean # ./configure --with-threads --build=athlon Configure reports that it is building for an i686-pc-none or something like that... #make This gives me an fgfs that is only a few hundred bytes bigger than the previous one. Sitting at the default start location on 28R at KSFO with the engine running and the brakes on, with the external view from directly astern of the default Cessna, I was getting 25 fps, and now I get 30 fps. A low orbit around beautiful downtown San Francisco rarely pulls the framerate below 17 fps, which is better than before, but nothing dramatic. Note that this is only FG recompiled with the =athlon switch but it's a generic config option; next time I do SimGear+plib+FG I'll apply it to all and see if there's a noticeable difference. Somewhere, there will be information about how gcc optimizes for i686 as opposed to i386, which I suppose is what it uses normally. I would expect that -march=athlon has the same effect...? Jonathan I just checked and I actually use -march=athlon-xp -m3dnow -mfpmath=sse. The -march=athlon-xp imples -mcpu=athlon-xp, according to TFM. Dunno if this the same stuff as invoked by --build=athlon. I can't see any other gcc/g++ stuff that might apply. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
Re: [Flightgear-users] Simulator screenshots
On Tuesday 28 October 2003 03:35, David Culp wrote: If you have a number of screen shots of your favorite flight simulator to share, now is your time to post them here: http://simscreens.net/ Here's one I added of an AI KC-135 orbiting over Los Angeles at 10,000 feet. Rendezvous with the JSBSim T-38. http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/refueling.jpg Dave -- David Culp davidculp2[at]comcast.net :) Might this get ito FG soon? An in-flight refuelling sub-system/facility would be... :) Does it use the 'KEMT' type AI or is it a multiplayer technique, and is there much jitter? LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
Re: [Flightgear-users] Base check failed - Mandrake 9.0 FlightGear 0.9.1
On Saturday 11 October 2003 17:24, Jonepet wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jonepet]$ /usr/local/FlightGear/bin/fgfs FlightGear: Version 0.9.2 Built with GNU C++ version 3.2 Scanning command line for: --fg-root= fg_root = /usr/local/lib/FlightGear Base package check failed ... Found version [none] at: /usr/local/lib/FlightGearPlease upgrade to version: 0.9.2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] jonepet]$ /usr/local/FlightGear/bin/fgfs --fgfs-root=/usr/local/FlightGear/ FlightGear: Version 0.9.2 Built with GNU C++ version 3.2 Scanning command line for: --fg-root= fg_root = /usr/local/lib/FlightGear Base package check failed ... Found version [none] at: /usr/local/lib/FlightGearPlease upgrade to version: 0.9.2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] jonepet]$ /usr/local/FlightGear/bin/fgfs --fgfs-root=/usr/local/FlightGear/ FlightGear: Version 0.9.2 Built with GNU C++ version 3.2 Scanning command line for: --fg-root= fg_root = /usr/local/lib/FlightGear Base package check failed ... Found version [none] at: /usr/local/lib/FlightGearPlease upgrade to version: 0.9.2 All compilations works well.. But it cannot start. First I configured it without argumenens. Next I uninstall it(make uninstall) and reconfigured it with ---prefix=/usr/local/FlightGear Have you downloaded and installed the base package? This contains all the data needed to run FG. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
[Flightgear-users] Gap in scenery around KSJC
Hello all, The area immediately around KSJC appears to be missing on my installation of FG. At one point I had the photo scenery for this airport but it appeared to go awol when I started using the cvs version. Now I just get a gap in the scenery around the airport (at night, it's full of stars;) As this airport is in the cvs base package I'm a bit surprised that it's not fixed itself. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
Re: [Flightgear-users] Harrier Flight Model
On Sunday 10 August 2003 16:24, Allan West wrote: Hi there, I was quite excited to find the Harrier flight model. First I notice there is not a 3D Cockpit or Aircraft Model for it. How do I go about creating these. I am lucky enough to have 3DS max and the skills to use it. Also what are the extra controls for the harrier - namely the nozzle swivel. Any tips on how flightgear is used to control this beast would be gratefully received. I had many a happy hour with AV8B - although this was more of a game than a sim but it was still predictably tricky landing in the hover. Cheers, Al Hello Al, FG can use .3ds models but I don't know if textures are supported for this format. I've not got the tools to create textured .3ds stuff, it's just a geometry export option in my 3d package, so I've not been able to try it. The A-10 and TSR2 models are still in untextured .3ds format but they have basic animations so having a look at those and their corresponding animation files should give you some idea of what you need to do when you make your model. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
Re: [Flightgear-users] Re: [ANN] 3D-Model: Donauturm, Vienna, Austria
On Friday 01 August 2003 09:23, Richard Bytheway wrote: On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Jon Stockill -- Friday 01 August 2003 01:41: * On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Melchior FRANZ wrote: London cries for a Big Ben ... That's the wrong end of the country :-) Yeah, but where you live you probably don't need landmarks. It's the boring flat land that needs them, like big towns. (I'm not from Vienna, either. :-) Sadly until the DEM gets a bit of an upgrade an awful lot of the country is rather flat - there's just not enough detail. Agreed, even the lumpy bits of the UK (Pennines etc) are pretty flat compared to the middle of continental Europe. I have considered trying to extract higher resolution DEM-like data from OS maps by scanning the maps and doing some image analysis (tracing the contour lines and roads etc), but it is a daunting task, and probably illegal too. Richard The O.S. certainly hold copyright on their published maps because they are 'designs' but I can't see how thay can copyright the data itself e.g. the contours, spot-heights, roads rivers etc. This would prevent anyone from making their own maps unless they deliberately made them inaccurate. This sort of data can't really be copyrighted as these features are part of the landscape. For example, if a certain hill is so many feet high and the O.S. mark it so on their maps, it doesn't prevent someone from going out with a theodolite, measuring it themselves and making their own map based from their own data. At the same time, the person who owns the land that the hill stands on can't stop the O.S. from surveying it and including the data about it on their maps. However, as with the Eiffel Tower thing, if a landowner incorporated a design into the land, that couldn't be regarded as part of the landscape, he might them be able to prevent that design being reproduced in a map. The O.S. might wish they could prevent people from using data they collected but there's no way to identify the source of the data. What if you estimated the height by walking up the hill, or simply just guessed it, and by co-incidence got it right - would you then be prevented from maing a map based on that? (It's just occurred to me that I could do it myself just by walking all over it with my GPS hand-held and collect the data that way). There used to be a rumour that the O.S. deliberately introduced small errors into their maps so that they could spot when they had been copied but this has been emphatically denied by them. It'd still be very hard work anyway, although untill the O.S. started collecting their data digitally, they had to digitise their maps by tracing them by hand. They had hundreds of people doing it at one time. Good job it's a small country. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
Re: [Flightgear-users] specifying a joystick in .fgfsrc
On Saturday 26 July 2003 19:24, Arnt Karlsen wrote: On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:05:40 +0100, Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: (swpp.xml isn't a good name but it was easy to type;) and change the name entry to read Mircosoft SideWinder Precision Pro instead of Microsft SideWinder Precision 2 Joystick ..ok, it'll probably work if you guys all agree to do the above, and is a neat way to distinguish it from an official Microsoft config file, but it also looks like a typo, which when corrected etc could confuse. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...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. Hello Arnt, I figured that the original sidewinder-precision-pro.xml had been set up with that name entry for a good reason and that's why I was looking into getting around it by pulling in the config I needed via .fgfsrc, and not by changing any of the release files, at least until we knew what was going on. The actual name of the config file isn't important, at least to me, as long as I know what it is, but the name entries must have those exact values for the matches to be made and for both types of joystick to be recognised. I haven't got a joystick that identifies itself with a Microsoft SideWinder Precision 2 Joystick string but presumably someone has and that's why it's been set up like that, and presumably, it's also got SideWinder Precision Pro on the box and painted or stamped on it somewhere, like mine. At a guess, prehaps the model identification string may have changed over time but not the model name, or even perhaps anything else - my one seems to work ok with the original file after just changing the name string. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
Re: [Flightgear-users] specifying a joystick in .fgfsrc
On Saturday 26 July 2003 20:03, Frederic Bouvier wrote: Lee Elliott wrote: I figured that the original sidewinder-precision-pro.xml had been set up with that name entry for a good reason and that's why I was looking into getting around it by pulling in the config I needed via .fgfsrc, and not by changing any of the release files, at least until we knew what was going on. Reported names, as well as axe numbering differs between Linux and Windows. That's why, in Logitech, there is 2 files for the Wingman Extreme Digital 3D joystick. -Fred Ta for pointing that out. I hadn't looked at any of the Logitech entries. I'm happier when things make some sort of sense:) LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
[Flightgear-users] Problems compiling Atlas
Hello List, I'm having problems compiling Atlas (fortunately, I have an older version still running on a differnt m/c). When I do a 'sh autogen.sh' I get Host info: Linux i686 automake: 1.7.4 (17) Running aclocal Running autoheader Running automake --add-missing Use of uninitialized value in split at /usr/bin/automake line 5320, GEN0 line 53. Running autoconf == Now you are ready to run './configure' == and if I then run ./configure it ends with Plib not specified SimGear not specified ./configure: line 3958: syntax error near unexpected token `' ./configure: line 3958: ` configure.ac' I'm guessing I need to update something but I don't know what. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
Re: [Flightgear-users] Abandoned Little-Known Airfields
[snip...] Lincolnshire and East Anglia are *full* of disused airfields - some that haven't been used in nearly 50 years, others that were only abandoned a few years ago. 'full' is almost the right word - I'm in that area (Herts/Essex border) and I can think of three closed/abandoned ones within ten miles of me that I explored as a youngster, and I was told there were a couple more that I hadn't known about. The runways had mostly been ploughed under and most of the brick buildings had been demolished and bull-dozed into heaps but there was a lot of reinforced concrete stuff that would've required explosives, and a lot of it, to break it down. I found a large flat mushroom shaped thing at one of them and I've been told that it was an air-raid shelter - apparently it was set low above the ground and the idea was to roll under it in the event of being caught out in the open in a raid. It had a couple of gouges/rough grooves in the top surface that looked, to my eyes, like it had been caused by cannon fire. I've been told that it was mainly Liberators flying out of these fields. LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
Re: [Flightgear-users] Fatal error while loading 3D Model
On Sunday 08 December 2002 10:30, you wrote: Moin when I try to load the 747 I always get an error, which says that it couldn't load the 3D Model. bodo@linux:~ fgfs --aircraft=747-yasim NewAirportInit KSFO idx = 11133 Current greenwich mean time = Sun Dec 8 10:22:01 2002 Current local time = Sun Dec 8 11:22:01 2002 WARNING: ssgLoadAC: Failed to open '/usr/lib/FlightGear/Aircraft/747/Model/boeing747.ac' for reading Fatal error: Failed to load 3D model (received from ) I have noticed that the directory doesn't exist Any solution ? Bodo Which directory is missing? Is it the Aircraft/747/Model dir on Version 0.7? I don't think the 747 model was included in that version as I seem to recall having to download it from somewhere (Wolfram's hanger perhaps). In versions 0.8 and 0.9 the model is boeing747-400-jw.ac and not boeing747.ac, and the 'Model' directory has had a 's' appended to it to become 'Models' LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
Re: [Flightgear-users] Auto Pilot probs in 0.9.1
On Saturday 07 December 2002 22:05, you wrote: I haven't seem either of these with my WIN32 executables Did you update the base package ? What system are you seeing this on ? Did you compile FGFS yourself ? This is on Linux and I compiled it myself. I found that the compiled fgfs does a version check, looking for a 0.9.1 base package but the version available for download is 0.9.0 - huh! I edited the version file to change it to 0.9.1 LeeE ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
