Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
On October 22, 2004 04:41 am, Boris Koenig wrote: well, functionally - pretty much yes I'd say, visually certainly not - while I personally don't really like that fancy stuff - to be honest, I usually don't even cope with it in the first place, I know some applications (also flight simulators like Fly II) that provide such visual means to simplify the usage ... The gains are not really that significant from my opinion - while everything looks neat and colorful, it's many times quite a task to find out where exactly a function is hidden. It depends on the design of the interface. If the layout is logical, then you shouldn't have any problem coping with it. For example, it will help to order the buttons/menu in such a way that the important and most used functions are presented first, and functions that are least used (ie. the config button) or least desired (ie. the exit button) are presented last. It will also help if there is a simple graphic (like line) that catches the user's attention and direct his/her focus from the top-left corner of the screen to the menu. Other important points that one will need to remember are: - All menu pages must have the same coherent design, so the users won't get confused. - Each menu page shouldn't have more than five options. - There shouldn't be any background image. If there is, it should be well blended in with the background color. So apart from the integrated desk functionality, fgrund does already feature aircraft selection and preview, I remember a discussion about one month ago where Erik mentioned that it wouldn't yet be really possible to change Aircraft on the fly (literally !), so probably it's not only a matter of shifting some code fragments within the source files, but rather some more thinking/rewriting seems to be involved. On the other hand it's of course true that most counterparts do feature such an integrated mechanism ... So it's probably not a matter of IF, but rather WHEN the code is revamped accordingly ... having fgrun as a viable and working alternative for most scenarios, it doesn't sound like a high-priority feature !? Ampere ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
On October 21, 2004 04:49 pm, C Sanjayan Rosenmund wrote: Someone mentioned the ability of installing and uninstalling aircraft, and possibly loading them as modules. This brought up (for me) the idea of moving back the starting point when the program loads. Instead of starting in the aircraft itself, start at a rental desk where you could select the aircraft you wish to fly from a list of installed aircraft (and only the most stable are included in the release package, everything is included in the CVS), then you hit load and the program fades to the cockpit and the rest is as is, with the exception of the option of going back to the selection desk. Isn't that what fgruns does? Ampere ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
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. Including all aircrafts into an already big download will not be a good idea. So, the best option will still be removing all the work-in-progress aircrafts from the base package, and keep the size of the download to a minimium. Ampere On October 19, 2004 06:20 pm, Boris Koenig wrote: Hi everybody ! Sorry to bring this up again - Just catching up on the hundreds of postings on both lists ... and I wanted to add the following: Jon Berndt wrote: Yes, I've made an attempt in the JSBSim config file format to include a done-ness specifier for the FDM: Beta, Alpha, Release, UNRELEASEABLE, etc. IMHO, probably ONLY Release models should be in the base package. I agree with much of what has been said so far - concerning the reputation of FlightGear suffering from various incomplete aircraft ... at times it's really hard to tell what's the cause of a problem, whether it's your hardware, the simulator or a particular aircraft ... So, I like the above idea, even though I don't think that it's necessary to remove immature aircarft, rather one could try a compromise - provide additional maturity flags within each aircraft's XML definition file, for example: experimental pre-alpha alpha pre-beta beta okay/working That way we would have one additional tag within the XML file, like: maturityalpha/maturity And would thereby enable the *user* to choose what kind of aircraft he/she wants to use. So, while the usual parameter --show-aircraft would currently display ALL available aircraft, we could have an additional parameter like: --min-maturity-level=beta to return only those aircraft in the base package that match the corresponding criteria. This would of course only be optional - but I think it could really reduce some of the frustration new users encounter when first trying out FG. So, one would end up having a definable maturity level for aircraft, in order to address the issues concerning too much realism it might be a good idea to also enable users to adjust the realism level on demand - this is something that other simulators offer, too - and it has been discussed on the devel list before ... One could still ship ALL aircraft, but prevent new users from trying unfinished aircraft and drawing false conclusions. Probably, it would not even be a bad idea to make --show-aircraft return by default only relatively mature aircraft instead of all the experimental stuff that's in the base package ? If that idea is accepted I would not mind taking care of the corresponding changes that make FlightGear return only aircraft meeting particular maturity requirements, frankly spoken simply because I was going to change one or two similar things, anyway - e.g. I wanted to be able to tell whether a particular aircraft is part of the base package or not, that's why I suggested some time ago to provide an additional tag for that purpose, too. -- Boris ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
Hi everybody ! Sorry to bring this up again - Just catching up on the hundreds of postings on both lists ... and I wanted to add the following: Jon Berndt wrote: Yes, I've made an attempt in the JSBSim config file format to include a done-ness specifier for the FDM: Beta, Alpha, Release, UNRELEASEABLE, etc. IMHO, probably ONLY Release models should be in the base package. I agree with much of what has been said so far - concerning the reputation of FlightGear suffering from various incomplete aircraft ... at times it's really hard to tell what's the cause of a problem, whether it's your hardware, the simulator or a particular aircraft ... So, I like the above idea, even though I don't think that it's necessary to remove immature aircarft, rather one could try a compromise - provide additional maturity flags within each aircraft's XML definition file, for example: experimental pre-alpha alpha pre-beta beta okay/working That way we would have one additional tag within the XML file, like: maturityalpha/maturity And would thereby enable the *user* to choose what kind of aircraft he/she wants to use. So, while the usual parameter --show-aircraft would currently display ALL available aircraft, we could have an additional parameter like: --min-maturity-level=beta to return only those aircraft in the base package that match the corresponding criteria. This would of course only be optional - but I think it could really reduce some of the frustration new users encounter when first trying out FG. So, one would end up having a definable maturity level for aircraft, in order to address the issues concerning too much realism it might be a good idea to also enable users to adjust the realism level on demand - this is something that other simulators offer, too - and it has been discussed on the devel list before ... One could still ship ALL aircraft, but prevent new users from trying unfinished aircraft and drawing false conclusions. Probably, it would not even be a bad idea to make --show-aircraft return by default only relatively mature aircraft instead of all the experimental stuff that's in the base package ? If that idea is accepted I would not mind taking care of the corresponding changes that make FlightGear return only aircraft meeting particular maturity requirements, frankly spoken simply because I was going to change one or two similar things, anyway - e.g. I wanted to be able to tell whether a particular aircraft is part of the base package or not, that's why I suggested some time ago to provide an additional tag for that purpose, too. -- Boris ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
Andreas wrote: --prop:/environment/params/real-world-weather-fetch=true These oscillations can happen when new weather is fetched. I would urge to try without this option and then report back. Ok. BTW, is there an option to make flightgear output the whole flight to a file so that you could take a look at it and perhaps even watch FG doing my flight? You can experiment with the generic I/O protocol a bit. Please take a look at README.IO in the Docs (or docs-mini) directory and README.Protocol file in the Protocols directory in the base package. Erik ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
There was a push for a while to produce a newsletter, but it's more work than you'd think. Good layout tools for a nice looking newsletter seem to be proprietary. We had two people working on a first newsletter issue, but that seemed to fall through. Basically, it's a *lot* of work. A newsletter would be great, but I personally have too many irons in the fire already. We need to find other volunteers to organize it and put it together, and still more volunteers to write content. We need to find something with enough time that they can follow up and remind people to finish their articles, with enough time to write a few things themselves, and with enough time to follow through, get the newsletter out, and be able to do it monthly or quarterly. We collect a lot of developers and aviation enthusiasts here, but we are still looking for that elusive publishing expert who also happens to be a fan of flightgear and open source (and has some consistant amounts of spare time to volunteer.) Regards, Curt. Geoff wrote: I have had enormous fun with all of a/c in fg over the past five years or so. In my opinion, one of the nicer things about fg is that one is able to see things develop. If a model does not seem to work well (or at all), I just leave it a while and sooner or later I return to find an improvement. If something seems weirdly out of kilter I browse the dev archives, and I usually find that a fix is under discussion there. I am not picking a fight with anyone who thinks differently, but for me this is the essence of using open source software. One thing that I would love to see would be an occasional news letter from the developers - posted here or and/or on the website every quarter or so - explaining the general thrust of development. I know that one can read dev for that, but the issues there tend to be very detailed and it is difficult for an outsider to see the wood for the trees. Such a newsletter could also be used to ask users to monitor particular areas under development for bugs. I do appreciate that every hour spent by (eg) Curt on the newsletter would be an hour less of code (or just having a life away from fg). Even so, it would be nice .. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
Shucks ... I can't get FG running again (keeps aborting on joystick bindings) but I was getting the yaw oscillations at about 2000 feet in level flight at about 250 knots (clean configuration). When I manage to get FG running again I'll set up a proper problem scenario. Paul On Saturday, 16 October 2004 23:36, David Culp wrote: The 737 is a really nice piece of work but the FDM needs a little tweaking. It gets into a strange yaw oscillation under nearly any circumstance that gets really annoying after a few minutes. :) I really wish I could help out with some of the aircraft but getting info is really difficult and working on FDM's is way past my ability and intelligence. You CAN help. Can you start by describing the flight condition that leads to the yaw oscillation? I'll need to reproduce this same flight condition so I can see what's happening first. Right now I don't see the oscillation. Dave ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
David Culp wrote: I see that too. The condition is nothing special actually. Just fly level and try a left turn. In my case, the nose will first go the right and then the aircraft will start turning left. Almost like the left bank caused a right rudder reaction for a while. I can't reproduce that. Can you send me the 737.xml file you're using so I can compare it with mine? It's the one from the 0.9.6 base package. Attached. I just flew it and I could reproduce it, but not always. My conditions were: - straight flight - 34000 feet of altitude - 290 knots airspeed - mach 0.85 A little left bank was preceeded by a right one. Also, the vertical speed indicator is not working (and the AP is not working also, but I guess you know that already). My ~/.fgfsrc is also attached. --fg-root=/usr/share/FlightGear --control=joystick --enable-game-mode --fog-nicest --enable-random-objects --enable-ai-models --prop:/environment/params/real-world-weather-fetch=true --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/axis[1]/binding/command=property-scale --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/axis[1]/binding/property=/controls/flight/elevator --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/axis[1]/binding/dead-band=0.02 --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/axis[1]/binding/offset=0.0 --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/axis[1]/binding/factor=1.0 --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/axis[0]/binding/command=property-scale --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/axis[0]/binding/property=/controls/flight/aileron --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/axis[0]/binding/dead-band=0.02 --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/axis[0]/binding/offset=0.0 --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/axis[0]/binding/factor=1.0 --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/axis[2]/binding/command=property-scale --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/axis[2]/binding/property=/controls/flight/rudder --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/axis[2]/binding/dead-band=0.9 --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/axis[2]/binding/offset=0.0 --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/axis[2]/binding/factor=1.0 --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/axis[3]/binding/command=property-scale --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/axis[3]/binding/property=/controls/engines/engine/throttle --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/axis[3]/binding/dead-band=0.02 --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/axis[3]/binding/offset=-1.0 --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/axis[3]/binding/factor=-0.5 --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[4]/binding/repeatable=false --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[4]/binding/command=property-adjust --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[4]/binding/property=/controls/gear/brake-left --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[4]/binding/step=1 --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[7]/binding/repeatable=false --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[7]/binding/command=property-adjust --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[7]/binding/property=/controls/gear/brake-right --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[7]/binding/step=1 --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[5]/binding/repeatable=false --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[5]/binding/command=property-adjust --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[5]/binding/property=/controls/flight/flaps --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[5]/binding/step=0.34 --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[6]/binding/repeatable=false --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[6]/binding/command=property-adjust --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[6]/binding/property=/controls/flight/flaps --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[6]/binding/step=-0.34 --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[2]/binding/repeatable=true --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[2]/binding/command=property-adjust --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[2]/binding/property=/controls/flight/elevator-trim --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[2]/binding/step=0.001 --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[1]/binding/repeatable=true --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[1]/binding/command=property-adjust --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[1]/binding/property=/controls/flight/elevator-trim --prop:/input/joysticks/js[0]/button[1]/binding/step=-0.001 FDM_CONFIG NAME=737 VERSION=1.65 RELEASE=BETA !-- File: 737.xml Author: Aero-Matic v 0.7, David Culp Inputs: name: 737 type: two-engine transonic transport max weight:13.0 lb wing span: 94.75 ft length:109.6 ft wing area: 1135 sq-ft gear type: tricycle retractable?: yes # engines: 2 engine type: turbine engine layout: wings yaw damper?yes Outputs: wing loading: 114.54 lb/sq-ft CL-alpha: 4.4 per radian CL-0: 0.2 CL-max:1.2 CD-0: 0.02 K: 0.043 -- METRICS AC_WINGAREA 1171.0 AC_WINGSPAN 94.7 AC_CHORD 12.31 AC_HTAILAREA 348.0 AC_HTAILARM 48.04 AC_VTAILAREA 297.00 AC_LV44.50 AC_IXX 562000.0 AC_IYY 1473000.0 AC_IZZ 1894000.0 AC_IXZ 8000 AC_EMPTYWT 83000 AC_CGLOC 639.0 0.0 -40.0 AC_AERORP625.0 0.0 24.0 AC_EYEPTLOC 80.0 -30.0 70.0 AC_VRP
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
Andreas wrote: It's the one from the 0.9.6 base package. Attached. I just flew it and I could reproduce it, but not always. My conditions were: - straight flight - 34000 feet of altitude - 290 knots airspeed - mach 0.85 A little left bank was preceeded by a right one. Also, the vertical speed indicator is not working (and the AP is not working also, but I guess you know that already). My ~/.fgfsrc is also attached. --fg-root=/usr/share/FlightGear --control=joystick --enable-game-mode --fog-nicest --enable-random-objects --enable-ai-models --prop:/environment/params/real-world-weather-fetch=true These oscillations can happen when new weather is fetched. I would urge to try without this option and then report back. Erik ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
--prop:/environment/params/real-world-weather-fetch=true These oscillations can happen when new weather is fetched. I would urge to try without this option and then report back. Ok. BTW, is there an option to make flightgear output the whole flight to a file so that you could take a look at it and perhaps even watch FG doing my flight? ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
Does someone have a list of flyable aircraft for FlightGear? About the only aircraft that handles in a realistic way is the 172. What I would love to see done is all the incomplete aircraft stripped out of FlightGear. It leaves a sour taste in one's mouth when you try all the aircraft and just get one mess after another. It would be better if there was only 1 good aircraft in FlightGear than add a whole bunch of useless ones that just drag the reputation and quality of FlightGear down. How did most of these aircraft make it into official releases anyway? I know these are some rather hard remarks but I can't find one decent jet to fly in FlightGear and it's frustrating. Paul ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
Paul Surgeon wrote: Does someone have a list of flyable aircraft for FlightGear? About the only aircraft that handles in a realistic way is the 172. I once tried to come up with a table listing what worked and what didn't work on all aircrafts, but gave up. What I would love to see done is all the incomplete aircraft stripped out of FlightGear. It leaves a sour taste in one's mouth when you try all the aircraft and just get one mess after another. Me too, but in another way. There is a --verbose flag to --help, right? Give this flag to --show-aircraft as well so that, by default, --show-aircraft only shows the working airplaines, and only with --verbose would the more experimental ones show. It would be better if there was only 1 good aircraft in FlightGear than add a whole bunch of useless ones that just drag the reputation and quality of FlightGear down. How did most of these aircraft make it into official releases anyway? I know these are some rather hard remarks but I can't find one decent jet to fly in FlightGear and it's frustrating. I'm also stuck with c172 for now, and short trips. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
David Megginson wrote: impressed by any of the jets and panels in MSFS or Fly!), and if they make the jets realistic, the potential pool of users who could actually handle them will be small -- the sad irony is that the better they do, the more complaints they'll get. We already have trouble with regular, sometimes angry mail from people who think it's a bug that our single-engine planes pull to the right during a steep climb, or that taildraggers don't just go straight down the runway on their own when the tailwheel comes up. So, are you saying that all planes that behave in an odd way are actually modelled correctly? Can this be said about version 0.9.6, for example? If not, then the point is to move those planes that are still work in progress to somewhere else, like the --verbose thing I mentioned earlier. The 737 model, for example, clearly states that it's a beta version. I don't know regarding what, if the fdm or the panel (which doesn't work very well, for example). ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
David Megginson wrote: The C-172p (which you mentioned) and PA-28-161 handle very accurately. The C-310 is flyable, if a little klunky. The J3 Cub works well, as the the Wright Flyer (it's almost unflyable, but so is the real thing). The DC-3 is usable, if not entirely realistic -- the main problem is the panel. The BO-105 helicopter is also flyable, but does not support autorotations yet. That's about all I regularly fly -- of lot of the jets work, but I don't know how realistic their handling is; the turbine engines are certainly oversimplified compared to our piston engine support (which is maybe 70% accurate right now). Don't forget the seahawk, hunter, p-51, a4, and spitfire which are all pretty complete packages including full 3d cockpits. Lee E's creations (a10, b-52, an225, tsr2, comperswift, and yf23) are also a lot of fun if you don't mind that they have no 3d cockpit, and the 2d panel is more of a debugging tool. The external visuals and animations are as good as anything I've seen ... check out the gear compression animation on these when you break hard or touch down. They also fly very nice (but the performance is a bit more speculative in many cases.) These models have a lot of hidden details that you have to hunt around to see. For instance, on some of the jets, watch closely when you drop a couple notches of flaps ... The beech1900 has a pretty good first cut at the flight dynamics and flies quite nicely. The YAsim turboprop modeling is pretty simplistic at this point, it has a nice, but only-2d instrument panel, and the external visual model is a straight import from a simple FS98 model. But, I think there is someone working on a much nicer 3d model which should really add to this one. Hopefully as our turboprop modeling gets better we will see a lot more of this class aircraft. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
David Megginson wrote: The C-172p (which you mentioned) and PA-28-161 handle very accurately. The C-310 is flyable, if a little klunky. The J3 Cub works well, as the the Wright Flyer (it's almost unflyable, but so is the real thing). The DC-3 is usable, if not entirely realistic -- the main problem is the panel. The BO-105 helicopter is also flyable, but does not support autorotations yet. That's about all I regularly fly -- of lot of the jets work, but I don't know how realistic their handling is; the turbine engines are certainly oversimplified compared to our piston engine support (which is maybe 70% accurate right now). Don't forget the seahawk, hunter, p-51, a4, and spitfire which are all pretty complete packages including full 3d cockpits. Lee E's creations (a10, b-52, an225, tsr2, comperswift, and yf23) are also a lot of fun if you don't mind that they have no 3d cockpit, and the 2d panel is more of a debugging tool. The external visuals and animations are as good as anything I've seen ... check out the gear compression animation on these when you break hard or touch down. They also fly very nice (but the performance is a bit more speculative in many cases.) These models have a lot of hidden details that you have to hunt around to see. For instance, on some of the jets, watch closely when you drop a couple notches of flaps ... The beech1900 has a pretty good first cut at the flight dynamics and flies quite nicely. The YAsim turboprop modeling is pretty simplistic at this point, it has a nice, but only-2d instrument panel, and the external visual model is a straight import from a simple FS98 model. But, I think there is someone working on a much nicer 3d model which should really add to this one. Hopefully as our turboprop modeling gets better we will see a lot more of this class aircraft. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
On 16 Oct 2004 at 11:28, Andreas wrote: So, are you saying that all planes that behave in an odd way are actually modelled correctly? Can this be said about version 0.9.6, for example? If not, then the point is to move those planes that are still work in progress to somewhere else, like the --verbose thing I mentioned earlier. The 737 model, for example, clearly states that it's a beta version. I don't know regarding what, if the fdm or the panel (which doesn't work very well, for example). Andreas, I recently had a discussion here about odd behaviour of several planes, including the 172 1981 model which still is about the only one that I can enjoy in my FGFS. People mentioned the torque effects, and I got it about under control, but despite that it's still the only decently behaving plane in my setup. I thought I had a messed up setup, which was done by running one installer over another one, then upgrading the fgfs.exe file to the latest one, but when I did it as it should have been done, there was no difference at all. I kept my mouth shut but now I see I'm not the only 1. It cud be handy to have all alpha and beta models in a separate dir, with a big sign Experimental! Operate at own risk... As for the panels: I've been using Fly since day 1, even bought Fly2! later. Maybe the fdm's aren't the best, at least panels work like they should work. Also AP's work like they should work; if there is someone who claims flight NWA052 is done purely by hand from Frankfurt to destination this person lies. A 737 cud be a nice one to do some trips with in FG, but a working AP would be even nicer. As long as that isn't the case, I'd suggest to move the bird into the experimental dir. Louis ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 09:59:09 -0400, David wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:50:39 -0700, Stewart Andreason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the rest of us, it would be nice to be able to set an option to tone down the propeller effects... I sincerely hope that you'll never see that, but we could create some separate, totally imaginary flight models for beginners, like 747-video-game, f16-video-game, or 172-video-game. After all, we do have a UFO flight model in there already. ..or 747-Wintendo-game etc? Put the blame where it belongs. ;-) -- ..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. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
David Megginson wrote: Remember that no plane will fly straight and level indefinitely with your hands off the controls, and many planes will need a lot of input to track the centreline during the takeoff roll -- these are features that we worked hard to add, not bugs that we need to fix. Good, I don't want a toy, I want a simulator. But with the current mixture of good, work-in-progress and bad planes in the default package, when something feels odd I keep wondering if it's the plane that is not ready, if it's my joystick that is giving false readings or if it is real. That I have to make this questions to myself takes away all the fun and brings me back to my chair in front of my desk. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
Jon Berndt wrote: Yes, I've made an attempt in the JSBSim config file format to include a done-ness specifier for the FDM: Would this be really needed? A simple README would suffice I think. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
louis holleman wrote: I recently had a discussion here about odd behaviour of several planes, including the 172 1981 model which still is about the only one that I can enjoy in my FGFS. People mentioned the torque effects, and I got it about under control, but despite that it's still the only decently behaving plane in my setup. I thought I had a messed up setup, which I'm not claiming to be a real pilot: I'm not. I can accept this kind of behaviour for the c172 since I've never even been in one. If pilots say this is the way it behaves, I accept it. What I don't want to keep doing is asking myself this question: wow, is this really so? Or is this one of those planes whose model is still being worked on?. As for the panels: I've been using Fly since day 1, even bought Fly2! later. Maybe the fdm's aren't the best, at least panels work like they should work. Also AP's work like I agree about the panels. I don't mind having 3D cockpits, just give me working instruments. they should work; if there is someone who claims flight NWA052 is done purely by hand from Frankfurt to destination this person lies. A 737 cud be a nice one to do some trips with in FG, but a working AP would be even nicer. As long as that isn't the case, I'd suggest to move the bird into the experimental dir. Now, I'm perfectly happy with the c172. It's great flying and learning. I just whish there were more good aircrafts like this one. But this is a free project, and people have a life. So, again repeating my suggestion, I think it would be great to somehow mark the aircrafts which are not yet ready somehow. One day they will be ready and we will all be able to enjoy them. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:36:40 -0500, David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You CAN help. Can you start by describing the flight condition that leads to the yaw oscillation? I'll need to reproduce this same flight condition so I can see what's happening first. I'm speaking from near-ignorance because I have zero experience with transport jets, but don't they often have a lot of yaw oscillation? I thought that was why the yaw-damper was always on, even when the pilot was hand-flying. Once on the radio, I did hear a big jet (don't remember the type) declare an emergency and return to the airport because it lost its yaw damper. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
David Culp wrote: You CAN help. Can you start by describing the flight condition that leads to the yaw oscillation? I'll need to reproduce this same flight condition so I can see what's happening first. Right now I don't see the oscillation. I see that too. The condition is nothing special actually. Just fly level and try a left turn. In my case, the nose will first go the right and then the aircraft will start turning left. Almost like the left bank caused a right rudder reaction for a while. ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
You CAN help. Can you start by describing the flight condition that leads to the yaw oscillation? I'll need to reproduce this same flight condition so I can see what's happening first. I'm speaking from near-ignorance because I have zero experience with transport jets, but don't they often have a lot of yaw oscillation? I thought that was why the yaw-damper was always on, even when the pilot was hand-flying. Once on the radio, I did hear a big jet (don't remember the type) declare an emergency and return to the airport because it lost its yaw damper. All of the ones I'm familiar with need a yaw damper, but they'll fly adequately without one. If the yaw damper quits enroute you can continue as long as you avoid certain flight regimes as specified in the flight manual. Of course there may be exceptions. It usually more of a problem at high altitude, which makes me wonder if that big jet's main problem was that it didn't have enough fuel to get to it's destination at the restricted altitude, so they called the flight off and declared the emergency for a very overweight landing. But that's just a wild guess :) Dave -- David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
I see that too. The condition is nothing special actually. Just fly level and try a left turn. In my case, the nose will first go the right and then the aircraft will start turning left. Almost like the left bank caused a right rudder reaction for a while. I can't reproduce that. Can you send me the 737.xml file you're using so I can compare it with mine? Thanks, Dave -- David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
On 16 Oct 2004 at 14:05, Andreas wrote: I'm not claiming to be a real pilot: I'm not. I can accept this kind of behaviour for the c172 since I've never even been in one. If pilots say this is the way it behaves, I accept it. Neither am I. I don't have probs with a/c simulating torque effects or don't fly perfectly straight when you don't coounteract. I do have probs with relatively simple a/c which require you to frantically operate your stick, pedals or whatever you try to control it with and dive nose down after a few secs. Even a sim should be some fun. As for now, the 172 1981 model is the only 1 I can enjoy, good enough coz it's mainly the scenery I keep FG for (yes folks, a free sim beats Fly and a lot of others just on scenery). What I don't want to keep doing is asking myself this question: wow, is this really so? Or is this one of those planes whose model is still being worked on?. Same here. I agree about the panels. I don't mind having 3D cockpits, just give me working instruments. Exactly Now, I'm perfectly happy with the c172. It's great flying and learning. I just whish there were more good aircrafts like this one. But this is a free project, and people have a life. You know, Fly was a commercial project. Lotsa people been spending lotsa time to develop improved versions of existing a/c in Fly or add completely new ones: the J3, Texan, C130, several versions of the 747 and many more have been made available for Fly for free, including completely new designed panels (some of em were based on FlightSimulator ones tho') and except for a MD82 beta I tried, none of em had real probs when they were released. The big problem is that FG now is one of the few choices one has when trying flightsimming, with Fly and Propilot being discontinued. In order to keep new users (who might be taking their very first steps into flightsimming) I think it would be very wise to limit the base package to the a/c which are foolproof and work more or less the way they should, including NAV's and AP, and make the 'beta and alpha planes available to them who are willing to crash every 5 mins. That's my 5 cents on it. Louis ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-users] Flyable aircraft
The 737 is a really nice piece of work but the FDM needs a little tweaking. It gets into a strange yaw oscillation under nearly any circumstance that gets really annoying after a few minutes. :) I really wish I could help out with some of the aircraft but getting info is really difficult and working on FDM's is way past my ability and intelligence. You CAN help. Can you start by describing the flight condition that leads to the yaw oscillation? I'll need to reproduce this same flight condition so I can see what's happening first. Right now I don't see the oscillation. Dave -- David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
