Jump to content

ThorstenRenk

Registered Users
  • Posts

    49
  • Joined

ThorstenRenk's Achievements

Expert  Simmer

Expert Simmer (3/7)

  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare

Recent Badges

10

Reputation

  1. There's no automated ATC in Flightgear, so I'm guessing what you've been listening to is the ATIS (automated weather reports) - whenever the comm is tuned to it, you will get to hear it, the solution is simply to change frequency or to switch the comm off. As for the simplified engine starting procedure - try a different (less realistically modeled) plane than the C-172p - for many it's as easy as 'magnetos on, press 's'' - and some even start with engine running - if you 'just want to fly' a bit, the planes on the upper end of the 'realistic systems' scale are probably not going to be a joy. I'm not completely sure about the C-172p, but there might be an 'Autostart' procedure available as well (?) - have a look at the menu items, it's been a while since I've flown it.
  2. For common HW models there should be existing configurations around, but basically you can just edit the input device files as needed. http://wiki.flightgear.org/Writing_Joystick_Code:_Part_1 According to this, for sensitivity you need to change to a higher value.
  3. I fear you have to contact Octal450 (the engineer of the IDG autopilots) in the FG forum - I understand the IDG series is generally fairly complicated, and I have no flight experience on any of these birds, so this is over my head. You'll find him generally rather responsive to questions.
  4. It really depends on what you want. FG is an OpenSource product, which means it doesn't make profits by being sold, which in turn means the ability to sell or market it doesn't influence development. That means that it comes with some features out of the box which might be somewhat hard to get otherwise (out of the box a detailed light scattering model in the atmosphere, the ability to let it drive 10 screens of a cockpit from multiple graphics cards, the ability to connect to a tablet to a running session via http and use that as an instructor station to monitor performance and cause failures,...) but also that (dependent on what you want) you may need some time to learn configuration etc. and you may need to write some xml to get your control HW supported properly. Quality of airplanes varies correspondingly compared to a product that needs to be marketed - some are just rough and unfinished by people who enjoy tinkering a bit, others at the high end couldn't be marketed because they require you to train like for the real thing before you can get anything done and only few people put up with that. Since it's free, you can just download the package and make up your mind whether that's what you want or not. (And please don't call it a game - the JSBSim code driving the flight dynamics is a research and industry tool, benchmark-tested against NASA simulation codes and FG is (among other things) developed for research and industry applications,...)
  5. Some proximity OPS testing before the release of the next version of my favourite spacecraft: Shuttle meets ISS - a relatively fast dusk flyaround maneuver. Orbital DAP to free (free drift, no automatic attitude management), establish a constant pitch rotation of 0.4 deg/s, use translational controls to keep ISS centered in COAS view recticle, use radar ranging to manage the distance and conpensate for centrifugal force, and we're slowly going around the station. Actually it's a fairly busy maneuver at that speed... if there's enough time, it's done using the apparent rotation of the inertial frame with the local horizon, which is more like 0.06 deg/s. http://www.science-and-fiction.org/FG/pics/shuttle_flyaround00.jpg Look at those clouds! http://www.science-and-fiction.org/FG/pics/shuttle_flyaround01.jpg The station seen through the COAS recticle. http://www.science-and-fiction.org/FG/pics/shuttle_flyaround02.jpg Last sunlight seen through the overhead windows. http://www.science-and-fiction.org/FG/pics/shuttle_flyaround03.jpg And, as we rotate around, the lights of Paris above - or below, dependent on how your coordinate system is arranged :) http://www.science-and-fiction.org/FG/pics/shuttle_flyaround04.jpg
  6. Tons, though I guess some under different licenses on private repositories. There's also a racetrack somewhere as 3d model where people have entertained themselves with motorcycle races - this thread might give you the idea. https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=29819 As Heiko said, it's defined in c182s-set.xml in the section that looks like true 75 -0.25 0.59 1.26 -10 true 160 0.15 40 160 0.22 65 (there's more blocks below for co-pilot view etc., I guess you get the picture). It's fairly self-explanatory I guess.
  7. Sorry - is there a point to this text? It sounds neither constructive nor entertaining in any way. So maybe it's really something that doesn't need to be shared at all?
  8. So just to make sure, moving the view works, you just can't do it with the mouse for some reason, if you try it with the mouse, something else happens? That isn't a problem because you can easily make it persistent, but since moving the viewpoint is supposed to be a dynamical part of the simulation (like you move your head in reality), hat's the preferred mode of operation I guess and saving user-side custom views has low priority. (You'd make it persistent by either editing the aircraft files or writing your own config which you load via commandline)
  9. Well, that is weird (and finally explains why you're unhappy with the situation). What happens if you do it manually? * Open Debug -> Property browser * Go into /sim/current-view/ At the bottom will be x-offset-m, y-offset-m, z-offset-m which are the view coordinates relative to the 3d mesh origin - you can click on any of them and alter their value. Usually y is up in 3d space, so what happens if you just keep increasing y-offset-m a bit? *** My version of the 182S might be slightly different since I got it at some point from HHS for testing purposes, I believe it is a bit older than what you have, but the 3d mesh should be pretty much the same, so for the question we're discussing it should not matter. *** The distinction between 2d and 3d panels is at least a decade old and basically unsupported - initially FG had 2d panels, then the full 3d cockpits were phased in and at that time it was assumed to be a good idea to have it optional, now hardly any craft has 2d panels any more, so usually whatever you select you see the full 3d cockpit.
  10. It feels a bit silly, but I've gone through the motions to adjust the seat such that I can see the cowl - of course this is possible within a second or so if I want it (in view mode, right-click mouse, drag upward): The 182S http://www.science-and-fiction.org/FG/pics/silly_exercise_1.jpg And the 172: http://www.science-and-fiction.org/FG/pics/silly_exercise_2.jpg In the 172, I also see wingtips when I look towards the side form the same point, in the 182S I do not, I'd have to move lower again. Again, I've never been in a real 182S (or 172 for that matter) so I can't tell whether one should or not, but I can state confidently that it's a non-issue to adjust the view to what you expect to see.
  11. Okay, that's the one I mean. And you say you can not see the cowl if you adjust your seat (aka move the camera origin a few cm upward)?:confused: What do you see then if you look forward? Nothing? Again confused :confused: You were unable to define a joystick binding for cowl flaps? What was the obstacle?
  12. Which variant? The one HHS created and of which I posted a picture sure has a complete 3d model and if you move the view, you see the cowl, that I checked. The other one from which your picture is I don't know, I've never seen that plane, it looks fairly incomplete to begin with, so for all I know the external 3d model could be faulty. Well, they're just conventions. Not all craft have a propeller or flaps or a retractable gear (a helicopter comes to mind...), so naturally such bindings don't work. I'm fairly sure that gear or flaps are very standardized across all FG planes which have those.
  13. WIth regard to the viewpoint issues, I've gotten a response from one of the devel team (Gilberto) - apparently they did (and do) think about the issue and even have a user-adjustible viewpoint that can be saved in the making. I got one of their reference pictures back - see below: Note that in the picture, the camera position is slightly above the eypoint of the two pilots, and yet the cowl is barely visible - so it's very unlikely that any of the two would actually see it in this situation. So it would appear it's not exactly a simple issue and the available references don't speak a clear and unanimous language - which is why it's entirely possible that there may or may not be issues with the viewpoint or even the 3d model. I quote the invitation by Gilberto f anyone finds reliable data or photographs showing what can be improved then please contact our project as those are always very helpful. Here is the issue tracker of the aircraft devel repository where such questions are discussed - otherwise you can simply write to flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net (if you're not a list member mails will be held for moderation, but anyone can write to the list) and the right people will see the message. With regard to key bindings: FG allows to override key bindings based on a hierarchy core application so you don't have to live with anything that's defined. Generally this makes sense and allows the widest set of applications for the sim. For instance the Shuttle has no need of mixture controls, but it has two different control sticks (the translational (THC) and the rotational hand controller RHC)), so I have need of a key to switch between the two modes since most people won't have two sticks ready to use. Which is why I'm happy to take the 'm' key for the job. Usually the person creating the aircraft knows best what tasks need to be done in a hurry and can't rely on finding clickspots in the cockpit, and assihn key bindings reasonably. But a 3-axis sim has different needs than a laptop user, and a person actually might have two physical sticks available, so the user can modify all to his needs. If I remember correctly, there's a general issue with alt+key bindings as they're caught and interpreted by the OS on Mac systems, so they tend to work only under Linux and Windows and are hence discouraged. But (especially for complex craft), real estate on the keyboard is in short supply - which is why bindings which are not useful for the craft at hand are quickly reassigned. The bad news is that unfortunately there's no standard for projects such as yours - the good news is that since ultimately the user-defined bindings are used, everyone can make this work in the end.
  14. Okay, I get your point. I'm fairly sure though that what you see in a real aircraft depends on how tall you are and how you adjust your seat though, and that you move your head a few cm around its average position to look into various directions outside. In my pic, the top of the cowl is indeed not visible, but I can go to a view where I see it in 0.5 seconds by moving the view just a tad up. Similarly, I can move the view just a bit to look at the wingtips. Views are not meant to be static entities in FG, so for me moving view to see something I want to look at is second nature during simulated flight (for instance one can't operate the Shuttle at all without moving the view, there's some panels which are impossible to reach without twisting and turning in real life). Now, whether the real aircraft is so that you can look at cowl top and wingtips from the very same head position / camera origin I simply don't know (I don't have access to a real Cessna) - if that is the case, the 3d model would be off. (As a side note, I've often noticed that in some fighter jets the default view offers very poor visibility during touchdown - there've been a few discussions about that as well, and generally the answer was that pilots must move their head a bit, once that's done, the problems go away). In any case, I'll forward a link to this discussion to the C-172 / 182 devel teams, they ought to have the aircraft-specific information which I do not and might have further insight.
  15. I'm sorry, I don't understand. Do you mean you can't see the wing tips in the C-172? Why not? You can adjust view position, view direction and field of view with mouse gestures to anything you like, or you can configure your own default views, I believe FGCamera offers a joystick-controlled camera motion,... Or did I grossly misunderstand that? Surely not all aircraft are fully developed, but the 182S for me looks like that (it's one of those at the visual top end): http://www.science-and-fiction.org/FG/pics/c182s.jpg (and incidentially, the shot also shows the amount of terrain detail and undergrowth we can render - that's the Atmospheric Light Scattering rendering framework in case you're wondering) - so if you'd set your eyes on a variant of the craft, you'd see something rather different. This may be a stupid question, but what about other radio stacks and their com frequency? Usually 1 is tuned to tower and 2 to ATIS for the default setup. I have never experienced the problem that ATIS stays when I tune the radio off the ATIS frequency, nor have I seen any reports. New users occasionally ask how to shut it off, they get told what ATIS is and how radios are tuned, and the problem goes away. Point being, as developers we can't react to things we never see on our own systems and which are never reported.If it doesn't happen for us, we an interaction with lots of detailes passed back and forth, otherwise it's pretty much impossible to address issues.
×
×
  • Create New...