From: gerard r. <gh...@gm...> - 2009-03-22 01:45:43
|
Hello, Mathias With JSBsim aircraft i get now some strange behaviour regarding the groundcache on a moving Carrier. We can start from catapult on carrier, and the Aircraft is sitting correctly in place on the Ship , it follows correctly the speed of the carrier. => No problem :) After being catapulted and coming back to the carrier, with a nice landing on wires, on the deck, the aircraft does not follow the speed of the Carrier, even with Brake on we have some difficulties to stay in place. It seems that the aircraft do not identify the carrier like a moving object the second time. I did not noticed that problem before ... ( i don't know before when :( ) I can only say that my last FG CVS update is yesterday, the previous one was 10 days before. Tested with YASim Aircrafts that seems to be right. thanks -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire |
From: gerard r. <gh...@gm...> - 2009-03-22 12:46:18
|
Hello, Mathias With JSBsim aircraft i get now some strange behaviour regarding the groundcache on a moving Carrier. We can start from catapult on carrier, and the Aircraft is sitting correctly in place on the Ship , it follows correctly the speed of the carrier. => No problem :) After being catapulted and coming back to the carrier, with a nice landing on wires, on the deck, the aircraft does not follow the speed of the Carrier, even with Brake on we have some difficulties to stay in place. It seems that the aircraft do not identify the carrier like a moving object the second time. I did not noticed that problem before ... ( i don't know before when :( ) I can only say that my last FG CVS update is yesterday, the previous one was 10 days before. Tested with YASim Aircrafts that seems to be right. thanks -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire |
From: Mathias F. <Mat...@gm...> - 2009-03-23 09:12:25
|
Hi, On Sunday 22 March 2009 02:39:29 gerard robin wrote: > With JSBsim aircraft i get now some strange behaviour regarding the > groundcache on a moving Carrier. > > We can start from catapult on carrier, and the Aircraft is sitting > correctly in place on the Ship , it follows correctly the speed of the > carrier. => No problem :) > After being catapulted and coming back to the carrier, with a nice landing > on wires, on the deck, the aircraft does not follow the speed of the > Carrier, even with Brake on we have some difficulties to stay in place. > It seems that the aircraft do not identify the carrier like a moving object > the second time. > > I did not noticed that problem before ... ( i don't know before when :( ) > I can only say that my last FG CVS update is yesterday, the previous one > was 10 days before. Hmm, I did not manage to land again with JSB. Currently no clue. But thinking and trying ... Greetings Mathias |
From: gerard r. <gh...@gm...> - 2009-03-23 12:15:07
|
On lundi 23 mars 2009, Mathias Fröhlich wrote: > Hi, > > On Sunday 22 March 2009 02:39:29 gerard robin wrote: > > With JSBsim aircraft i get now some strange behaviour regarding the > > groundcache on a moving Carrier. > > > > We can start from catapult on carrier, and the Aircraft is sitting > > correctly in place on the Ship , it follows correctly the speed of the > > carrier. => No problem :) > > After being catapulted and coming back to the carrier, with a nice > > landing on wires, on the deck, the aircraft does not follow the speed > > of the Carrier, even with Brake on we have some difficulties to stay in > > place. It seems that the aircraft do not identify the carrier like a > > moving object the second time. > > > > I did not noticed that problem before ... ( i don't know before when :( ) > > I can only say that my last FG CVS update is yesterday, the previous > > one was 10 days before. > > Hmm, > I did not manage to land again with JSB. Currently no clue. But thinking > and trying ... > > Greetings > > Mathias My purpose was to point that error: When we start FG with a JSBSim aircraft on a moving carrier the groundcache is right, the Aircraft behaviour is right as long as we don't leave the deck. That nice groundcache feature definitively vanish when we leave the Carrier, even if we come back on it. We get the same error when taking off from an Airport , we get to land on Carrier, the groundcache on Carrier is not right. To conclude ONLY the first FG init of the groundcache ( on Carrier ) is right. It was not to oblige you to land on Carrier with a JSBSim Aircraft :) Mainly because there not any within CVS ( was the F8 which is now broken) Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire |
From: Arnt K. <ar...@c2...> - 2009-03-23 14:28:41
|
..on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:14:49 +0100, Gerard wrote in message <200...@gm...>: > My purpose was to point that error: > > When we start FG with a JSBSim aircraft on a moving carrier the > groundcache is right, the Aircraft behaviour is right as long as we > don't leave the deck. > > That nice groundcache feature definitively vanish when we leave the > Carrier, even if we come back on it. ..a question: Should the "runway carriers" even use the groundcache, "to place the runway correctly"? And not e.g. a "runway cache" that can move and even bend with its carrier? ..my understanding of the groundcache is, it is meant to tell when and which part of aircraft touches the ground how, where, during flights. ..over water, there's also tides and waves that should help make FG rule on my 405kt prop strikes, with shake or die verdicts. And, sea planes land too. > We get the same error when taking off from an Airport , we get to > land on Carrier, the groundcache on Carrier is not right. > > To conclude ONLY the first FG init of the groundcache ( on Carrier ) > is right. > > It was not to oblige you to land on Carrier with a JSBSim Aircraft :) > Mainly because there not any within CVS ( was the F8 which is now > broken) > > Cheers > > -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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. |
From: gerard r. <gh...@gm...> - 2009-03-23 14:54:07
|
On lundi 23 mars 2009, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > ..on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:14:49 +0100, Gerard wrote in message > > <200...@gm...>: > > My purpose was to point that error: > > > > When we start FG with a JSBSim aircraft on a moving carrier the > > groundcache is right, the Aircraft behaviour is right as long as we > > don't leave the deck. > > > > That nice groundcache feature definitively vanish when we leave the > > Carrier, even if we come back on it. > > ..a question: Should the "runway carriers" even use the groundcache, > "to place the runway correctly"? And not e.g. a "runway cache" that > can move and even bend with its carrier? > > ..my understanding of the groundcache is, it is meant to tell when and > which part of aircraft touches the ground how, where, during flights. > > ..over water, there's also tides and waves that should help make > FG rule on my 405kt prop strikes, with shake or die verdicts. > And, sea planes land too. > > > We get the same error when taking off from an Airport , we get to > > land on Carrier, the groundcache on Carrier is not right. > > > > To conclude ONLY the first FG init of the groundcache ( on Carrier ) > > is right. > > > > It was not to oblige you to land on Carrier with a JSBSim Aircraft :) > > Mainly because there not any within CVS ( was the F8 which is now > > broken) > > > > Cheers I am not certain that i do understand the question. Mathias has introduce a feature which makes that any solid object , house on water, ship, carrier, floating bridge etc.. is now solid for any Aircraft, for instance that Snapshot which shows that i could land on a ship which was NOT defined to be a carrier, the ship was cruising at 25 knots http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/Ouf.jpg However that snapshot is showing a YASim Aircraft FDM. To day, i am not sure, that would have been able to get the same result with a JSBsim aircraft ( for instance my Harrier GR7 ) . Then, now i am sure that won't be able to land, on a moving ship. Only possible with a "static" object. Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire |
From: Arnt K. <ar...@c2...> - 2009-03-23 19:21:08
|
Hi gerard, ..on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:54:02 +0100, you wrote in message <200...@gm...>: > On lundi 23 mars 2009, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > ..on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:14:49 +0100, Gerard wrote in message > > > > <200...@gm...>: > > > My purpose was to point that error: > > > > > > When we start FG with a JSBSim aircraft on a moving carrier the > > > groundcache is right, the Aircraft behaviour is right as long as > > > we don't leave the deck. > > > > > > That nice groundcache feature definitively vanish when we leave > > > the Carrier, even if we come back on it. > > > > ..a question: Should the "runway carriers" even use the > > groundcache, "to place the runway correctly"? And not e.g. a > > "runway cache" that can move and even bend with its carrier? > > > > ..my understanding of the groundcache is, it is meant to tell when > > and which part of aircraft touches the ground how, where, during > > flights. > > > > ..over water, there's also tides and waves that should help make > > FG rule on my 405kt prop strikes, with shake or die verdicts. > > And, sea planes land too. > > > > > We get the same error when taking off from an Airport , we get to > > > land on Carrier, the groundcache on Carrier is not right. > > > > > > To conclude ONLY the first FG init of the groundcache ( on > > > Carrier ) is right. > > > > > > It was not to oblige you to land on Carrier with a JSBSim > > > Aircraft :) Mainly because there not any within CVS ( was the F8 > > > which is now broken) > > > > > > Cheers > > I am not certain that i do understand the question. > Mathias has introduce a feature which makes that any solid object , > house on water, ship, carrier, floating bridge etc.. is now solid > for any Aircraft, for instance that Snapshot which shows that i > could land on a ship which was NOT defined to be a carrier, the ship > was cruising at 25 knots http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/Ouf.jpg > > However that snapshot is showing a YASim Aircraft FDM. To day, i am > not sure, that would have been able to get the same result with a > JSBsim aircraft ( for instance my Harrier GR7 ) . > Then, now i am sure that won't be able to land, on a moving ship. > Only possible with a "static" object. > > Cheers > -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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. |
From: Arnt K. <ar...@c2...> - 2009-03-23 19:56:09
|
Hi, ..sorry guys, I hit the wrong button: ..on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:54:02 +0100, Gerard wrote in message <200...@gm...>: > On lundi 23 mars 2009, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > ..on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:14:49 +0100, Gerard wrote in message > > > > <200...@gm...>: > > > My purpose was to point that error: > > > > > > When we start FG with a JSBSim aircraft on a moving carrier the > > > groundcache is right, the Aircraft behaviour is right as long as > > > we don't leave the deck. > > > > > > That nice groundcache feature definitively vanish when we leave > > > the Carrier, even if we come back on it. > > > > ..a question: Should the "runway carriers" even use the > > groundcache, "to place the runway correctly"? And not e.g. a > > "runway cache" that can move and even bend with its carrier? > > > > ..my understanding of the groundcache is, it is meant to tell when > > and which part of aircraft touches the ground how, where, during > > flights. > > > > ..over water, there's also tides and waves that should help make > > FG rule on my 405kt prop strikes, with shake or die verdicts. > > And, sea planes land too. > > > > > We get the same error when taking off from an Airport , we get to > > > land on Carrier, the groundcache on Carrier is not right. > > > > > > To conclude ONLY the first FG init of the groundcache ( on > > > Carrier ) is right. > > > > > > It was not to oblige you to land on Carrier with a JSBSim > > > Aircraft :) Mainly because there not any within CVS ( was the F8 > > > which is now broken) > > > > > > Cheers > > I am not certain that i do understand the question. ..I am (quite possibly cluelessly) suggesting "runways" or "landing surfaces" should use something _other_ than groundcache, a "runway cache" or "relevant landing surface caches" to support the "runways that move or bend", that would support carriers, ship borne helipads, truck borne 20' freight container tops, water waves, and maybe KSFO etc earthquakes too. > Mathias has introduce a feature which makes that any solid object , .._when_??? (Helps me find pointers to try "find out what he did when he did that" feature.) > house on water, ship, carrier, floating bridge etc.. is now solid > for any Aircraft, for instance that Snapshot which shows that i > could land on a ship which was NOT defined to be a carrier, the ship > was cruising at 25 knots http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/Ouf.jpg ..ok, that shows your chopper finding something to land on. ..and, you did it on March 2'nd, at 01:43:06: arnt@a45:/tmp $ ll --full-time Ouf.jpg -rw-r--r-- 1 arnt arnt 79670 2009-03-02 01:43:06.000000000 +0100 Ouf.jpg ..does this still work for you??? (same chopper and same ship etc) > However that snapshot is showing a YASim Aircraft FDM. To day, i am > not sure, that would have been able to get the same result with a > JSBsim aircraft ( for instance my Harrier GR7 ) . > Then, now i am sure that won't be able to land, on a moving ship. > Only possible with a "static" object. ..if you cheat to put your chopper on the ship, will it stay there as the ship moves??? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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. |
From: gerard r. <gh...@gm...> - 2009-03-24 01:04:42
|
On lundi 23 mars 2009, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > Hi, > > ..sorry guys, I hit the wrong button: > ..on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:54:02 +0100, Gerard wrote in message > > <200...@gm...>: > > On lundi 23 mars 2009, Arnt Karlsen wrote: SNIP > > ..I am (quite possibly cluelessly) suggesting "runways" or "landing > surfaces" should use something _other_ than groundcache, a "runway > cache" or "relevant landing surface caches" to support the "runways > that move or bend", that would support carriers, ship borne helipads, > truck borne 20' freight container tops, water waves, and maybe KSFO > etc earthquakes too. > Don't forget, you could land on any ground field , it is not necessary to have a runway, though with a B747 that would be better :) > > Mathias has introduce a feature which makes that any solid object , > > .._when_??? (Helps me find pointers to try "find out what he did > when he did that" feature.) > Look at the CVS log ( flightgear and simgear) done from the beginning of March by Mathias, mainly the groundcache. > > house on water, ship, carrier, floating bridge etc.. is now solid > > for any Aircraft, for instance that Snapshot which shows that i > > could land on a ship which was NOT defined to be a carrier, the ship > > was cruising at 25 knots http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/Ouf.jpg > > ..ok, that shows your chopper finding something to land on. > > ..and, you did it on March 2'nd, at 01:43:06: > arnt@a45:/tmp $ ll --full-time Ouf.jpg > -rw-r--r-- 1 arnt arnt 79670 2009-03-02 01:43:06.000000000 +0100 Ouf.jpg > > ..does this still work for you??? (same chopper and same ship etc) Yes, it does longer work, mainly with the YASim FDM aircraft , and under some specific conditions with JSBSim > > > However that snapshot is showing a YASim Aircraft FDM. To day, i am > > not sure, that would have been able to get the same result with a > > JSBsim aircraft ( for instance my Harrier GR7 ) . > > Then, now i am sure that won't be able to land, on a moving ship. > > Only possible with a "static" object. > > ..if you cheat to put your chopper on the ship, will it stay > there as the ship moves??? YES it does , the snapshot is the whitness of a bad landing done by a bad pilot , since the helo is not in the circle area. It is not the whitness of a sliding aircraft close to fall in the water, it is there where it landed , following the ship moving. Cheers BTW: that recent update has now a funny consequence, we can land on the wakes of the ship, since the wake is a solid object. -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire |
From: Mathias F. <Mat...@gm...> - 2009-03-24 06:36:31
|
Hi, On Monday 23 March 2009 13:14:49 gerard robin wrote: > When we start FG with a JSBSim aircraft on a moving carrier the groundcache > is right, the Aircraft behaviour is right as long as we don't leave the > deck. > > That nice groundcache feature definitively vanish when we leave the > Carrier, even if we come back on it. > > We get the same error when taking off from an Airport , we get to land on > Carrier, the groundcache on Carrier is not right. > > To conclude ONLY the first FG init of the groundcache ( on Carrier ) is > right. > > It was not to oblige you to land on Carrier with a JSBSim Aircraft :) > Mainly because there not any within CVS ( was the F8 which is now broken) Hmm, I have now tried with the default cessna. Due to the low approach speed this works well. Starting at the Nimitz and landing there. Applying brakes brings the cessna to rest wrt the carrier. So no problem. Resetting flightgear several times with the cessna on the carriers deck, applying brakes, works well. Starting at KSFO and landing on the carrier, applying brakes makes the cessna stick on the moving carrier. So again no problem. Can you confirm that the cessna works for you too? Does the F-8 Still not work? Really current cvs? Also simgear? You told about resetting the simulation? What are the exact conditions when that problem happens? May by I will need your F-8 and may be training hours to land on the carrier with that bird :) Greetings Mathias |
From: Vivian M. <viv...@li...> - 2009-03-24 08:58:28
|
Mathias wrote > > Hi, > > On Monday 23 March 2009 13:14:49 gerard robin wrote: > > When we start FG with a JSBSim aircraft on a moving carrier the > groundcache > > is right, the Aircraft behaviour is right as long as we don't leave the > > deck. > > > > That nice groundcache feature definitively vanish when we leave the > > Carrier, even if we come back on it. > > > > We get the same error when taking off from an Airport , we get to land > on > > Carrier, the groundcache on Carrier is not right. > > > > To conclude ONLY the first FG init of the groundcache ( on Carrier ) is > > right. > > > > It was not to oblige you to land on Carrier with a JSBSim Aircraft :) > > Mainly because there not any within CVS ( was the F8 which is now > broken) > > Hmm, I have now tried with the default cessna. > Due to the low approach speed this works well. > Starting at the Nimitz and landing there. Applying brakes brings the > cessna to > rest wrt the carrier. So no problem. > Resetting flightgear several times with the cessna on the carriers deck, > applying brakes, works well. > Starting at KSFO and landing on the carrier, applying brakes makes the > cessna > stick on the moving carrier. So again no problem. > > Can you confirm that the cessna works for you too? > Does the F-8 Still not work? > Really current cvs? Also simgear? > > You told about resetting the simulation? > What are the exact conditions when that problem happens? > > May by I will need your F-8 and may be training hours to land on the > carrier > with that bird :) > I've been testing the carrier stuff with YASim. It usually works, but a occasionally the deck isn't solid, and the ac falls right through on landing. This bug is intermittent: I have been unable to reproduce it reliably, or identify the conditions under which it occurs. Only twice in 20 or so landings. The old bug persists with the launchbar - when you take off from the carrier and return the launchbar sometimes re-engages itself without the need for the L key to be operated. Perhaps that's a feature not a bug. Wait ... I had a hand in that code ... I'll look at it. I might get time later to download Gerard's F8 and try to reproduce his reported bug. Vivian |
From: jean p. <jea...@wa...> - 2009-03-24 09:16:11
|
Vivian Meazza a écrit : > I've been testing the carrier stuff with YASim. It usually works, but a > occasionally the deck isn't solid, and the ac falls right through on > landing. This bug is intermittent: I have been unable to reproduce it > reliably, or identify the conditions under which it occurs. Only twice in 20 > or so landings. > > > The same for me, a day i was using mp_carrier, i started FG in KLSV and used position menu to teleport to KSAN, and the two times i did this carrier was not solid, I didn't check if it was true one more time, but with starting FG directly in KSAN the carrier was solid. jano |
From: gerard r. <gh...@gm...> - 2009-03-24 22:18:48
|
On mardi 24 mars 2009, jean pellotier wrote: > jean pellotier a écrit : > > Vivian Meazza a écrit : > >> I've been testing the carrier stuff with YASim. It usually works, but a > >> occasionally the deck isn't solid, and the ac falls right through on > >> landing. This bug is intermittent: I have been unable to reproduce it > >> reliably, or identify the conditions under which it occurs. Only twice > >> in 20 or so landings. > > > > The same for me, a day i was using mp_carrier, i started FG in KLSV and > > used position menu to teleport to KSAN, and the two times i did this > > carrier was not solid, I didn't check if it was true one more time, but > > with starting FG directly in KSAN the carrier was solid. > > > > jano > > I tested this few more times, in a place with severals carriers > (eisenhower, foch, clemenceau...) > and if i start FG far from this place, > then move with the location menu to the closest airport, carriers are > not solid (all the carriers). > If i start near the carriers, then move far away, and then come back, > carriers are solid. > I remember a long flight from KLSV to the carrier near KHAF, and the > carrier was not solid . > > To me it depend if the 3D model is loaded in startup. > > my two cents > > jano > > Hello Jano foch/clemenceau (the same carrier, old version from cvs ) was built for JSBsim aircrafts ( the Crusader and others from my hangar) , it was (is) probably not YASim compatible ( not consistent, not solid ). I have recently rebuilt a new version which is compatible JSBsim aircrafts, Yasim aircraft (tested with seahawk) with FG 1.9.1 If you want it it is here http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/Clemenceau.tar.bz2 BTW: the MP-Carrier is only virtual, when we use it, we are using our local version with our local parameters/file. Only the position is specific to MP. If it is not consistent with MP , it is not consistent with the usual AI / scenario. which the case with the Foch/clemenceau CVS -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire |
From: Mathias F. <Mat...@gm...> - 2009-04-12 09:54:43
|
Hi, On Tuesday 24 March 2009 20:31:17 jean pellotier wrote: > I tested this few more times, in a place with severals carriers > (eisenhower, foch, clemenceau...) and if i start FG far from this place, > then move with the location menu to the closest airport, carriers are > not solid (all the carriers). > If i start near the carriers, then move far away, and then come back, > carriers are solid. > I remember a long flight from KLSV to the carrier near KHAF, and the > carrier was not solid . > > To me it depend if the 3D model is loaded in startup. Can you please retest? I have found a problem with model loading and setting of the traversal masks that should now be fixed. Thanks for testing and hints! Greetings Mathias |
From: Mathias F. <Mat...@gm...> - 2009-03-24 09:17:22
|
Hi, On Tuesday 24 March 2009 09:58:23 Vivian Meazza wrote: > I've been testing the carrier stuff with YASim. It usually works, but a > occasionally the deck isn't solid, and the ac falls right through on > landing. This bug is intermittent: I have been unable to reproduce it > reliably, or identify the conditions under which it occurs. Only twice in > 20 or so landings. Hmm, I had hoped that this kind of thing is fixed by the introduction of the 'reference time' which should fix problems that arise from the FDM talking about an other time than the carrier. The problem then would be that the carrier is kind of 'already gone' or 'not yet there'. So does this happen at the same time than model loading still makes the simulation hang for some small amount of time? Or may be some other hint where I can search for that problem? > The old bug persists with the launchbar - when you take off from the > carrier and return the launchbar sometimes re-engages itself without the > need for the L key to be operated. Perhaps that's a feature not a bug. Wait > ... I had a hand in that code ... I'll look at it. > > I might get time later to download Gerard's F8 and try to reproduce his > reported bug. Thanks! Greetings Mathias |
From: jean p. <jea...@wa...> - 2009-03-24 19:31:39
|
jean pellotier a écrit : > Vivian Meazza a écrit : > >> I've been testing the carrier stuff with YASim. It usually works, but a >> occasionally the deck isn't solid, and the ac falls right through on >> landing. This bug is intermittent: I have been unable to reproduce it >> reliably, or identify the conditions under which it occurs. Only twice in 20 >> or so landings. >> >> >> >> > The same for me, a day i was using mp_carrier, i started FG in KLSV and > used position menu to teleport to KSAN, and the two times i did this > carrier was not solid, I didn't check if it was true one more time, but > with starting FG directly in KSAN the carrier was solid. > > jano > > I tested this few more times, in a place with severals carriers (eisenhower, foch, clemenceau...) and if i start FG far from this place, then move with the location menu to the closest airport, carriers are not solid (all the carriers). If i start near the carriers, then move far away, and then come back, carriers are solid. I remember a long flight from KLSV to the carrier near KHAF, and the carrier was not solid . To me it depend if the 3D model is loaded in startup. my two cents jano |
From: Mathias F. <Mat...@gm...> - 2009-03-25 08:30:44
|
Hi, On Tuesday 24 March 2009 20:31:17 jean pellotier wrote: > To me it depend if the 3D model is loaded in startup. Ok, thanks for the hint! Good observation. I will look into that. I am probably away from my mail until Sunday. So nothing new from my side until next week I guess. Greetings Mathias |
From: jean p. <jea...@wa...> - 2009-03-24 22:42:32
|
gerard robin a écrit : > foch/clemenceau (the same carrier, old version from cvs ) was built for JSBsim > aircrafts ( the Crusader and others from my hangar) , it was (is) probably > not YASim compatible ( not consistent, not solid ). > I use a scenario that make it solid, and the wire usable, and now after the ground cache change i removed all <solid> part and it's still solid , and more dangerous because the island is now solid :). except if i change airport as said before. It's the same with Nimitz and Eisenhower. Btw how do we make a part non solid now? like the wakes? > I have recently rebuilt a new version which is compatible JSBsim aircrafts, > Yasim aircraft (tested with seahawk) with FG 1.9.1 > If you want it it is here > http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/Clemenceau.tar.bz2 > > BTW: the MP-Carrier is only virtual, when we use it, we are using our local > version with our local parameters/file. > Only the position is specific to MP. > > If it is not consistent with MP , it is not consistent with the usual AI / > scenario. which the case with the Foch/clemenceau CVS > > the tests were done only with ai carriers. jano |
From: gerard r. <gh...@gm...> - 2009-03-24 23:11:42
|
On mardi 24 mars 2009, jean pellotier wrote: > gerard robin a écrit : > > foch/clemenceau (the same carrier, old version from cvs ) was built for > > JSBsim aircrafts ( the Crusader and others from my hangar) , it was (is) > > probably not YASim compatible ( not consistent, not solid ). > > I use a scenario that make it solid, and the wire usable, and now after > the ground cache change i removed all <solid> part and it's still solid > , and more dangerous because the island is now solid :). Why not, the real ones have island solid , that is more realistic. I have tested on an other Carrier ( straight deck Arromanches ) the arrester Net ( not sure about the word) which can be used in case of emergency. that new groundcache is very useful for it. > except if i > change airport as said before. It's the same with Nimitz and Eisenhower. > Btw how do we make a part non solid now? like the wakes? Yes with wakes solid that is funny :) we could replace it with osg , i did it with Foch, but nobody seemed interested on it. remember http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/Foch-OSG_wakes.jpg > > > I have recently rebuilt a new version which is compatible JSBsim > > aircrafts, Yasim aircraft (tested with seahawk) with FG 1.9.1 > > If you want it it is here > > http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/Clemenceau.tar.bz2 > > > > BTW: the MP-Carrier is only virtual, when we use it, we are using our > > local version with our local parameters/file. > > Only the position is specific to MP. > > > > If it is not consistent with MP , it is not consistent with the usual AI > > / scenario. which the case with the Foch/clemenceau CVS > > the tests were done only with ai carriers. > > jano > -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire |
From: Mathias F. <Mat...@gm...> - 2009-03-25 08:33:43
|
Hi, On Tuesday 24 March 2009 23:42:18 jean pellotier wrote: > I use a scenario that make it solid, and the wire usable, and now after > the ground cache change i removed all <solid> part and it's still solid > , and more dangerous because the island is now solid :). except if i > change airport as said before. It's the same with Nimitz and Eisenhower. > Btw how do we make a part non solid now? like the wakes? Look into the lights of the Nimitz. Some of them have a nohot tag or something similar. This means 'no height of terrain'. If you set that in the way the lights are set. Geometry is not used for ground intersection. Greetings Mathias |
From: gerard r. <gh...@gm...> - 2009-03-25 13:53:09
|
On mercredi 25 mars 2009, Mathias Fröhlich wrote: > Hi, > > On Tuesday 24 March 2009 23:42:18 jean pellotier wrote: > > I use a scenario that make it solid, and the wire usable, and now after > > the ground cache change i removed all <solid> part and it's still solid > > , and more dangerous because the island is now solid :). except if i > > change airport as said before. It's the same with Nimitz and Eisenhower. > > Btw how do we make a part non solid now? like the wakes? > > Look into the lights of the Nimitz. Some of them have a nohot tag or > something similar. This means 'no height of terrain'. If you set that in > the way the lights are set. Geometry is not used for ground intersection. > > Greetings > > Mathias The question was good, and the answer gives us the solution. Perfectly working, now the wakes are "transparent" thanks -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire |
From: jean p. <jea...@wa...> - 2009-04-13 13:14:45
|
Mathias Fröhlich a écrit : >> I tested this few more times, in a place with severals carriers >> (eisenhower, foch, clemenceau...) and if i start FG far from this place, >> then move with the location menu to the closest airport, carriers are >> not solid (all the carriers). >> If i start near the carriers, then move far away, and then come back, >> carriers are solid. >> I remember a long flight from KLSV to the carrier near KHAF, and the >> carrier was not solid . >> >> To me it depend if the 3D model is loaded in startup. >> > > Can you please retest? > > I have found a problem with model loading and setting of the traversal masks > that should now be fixed. > > i tested, starting FG in KLSV, going to KHAF with location menu, and after 50 nm cruise to the Carl Vinson, and, he is solid now, but the arresting wires don't work in this case. second try, starting on the carrier deck, all is fine. using the location menu has same effects on other carriers near LFTH (got foch, clemenceau and eisenhower here), none of them have a working wire if i come near with location menu from far, but now they are solid btw with little front wind, little fuel, the f14 don't need the wires to stop on the carrier :). jano |
From: gerard r. <gh...@gm...> - 2009-04-13 14:25:06
|
On lundi 13 avril 2009, jean pellotier wrote: > Mathias Fröhlich a écrit : > >> I tested this few more times, in a place with severals carriers > >> (eisenhower, foch, clemenceau...) and if i start FG far from this place, > >> then move with the location menu to the closest airport, carriers are > >> not solid (all the carriers). > >> If i start near the carriers, then move far away, and then come back, > >> carriers are solid. > >> I remember a long flight from KLSV to the carrier near KHAF, and the > >> carrier was not solid . > >> > >> To me it depend if the 3D model is loaded in startup. > > > > Can you please retest? > > > > I have found a problem with model loading and setting of the traversal > > masks that should now be fixed. > > i tested, starting FG in KLSV, going to KHAF with location menu, and > after 50 nm cruise to the Carl Vinson, and, he is solid now, but the > arresting wires don't work in this case. > > second try, starting on the carrier deck, all is fine. > using the location menu has same effects on other carriers near LFTH > (got foch, clemenceau and eisenhower here), none of them have a working > wire if i come near with location menu from far, but now they are solid > > btw with little front wind, little fuel, the f14 don't need the wires to > stop on the carrier :). > > jano > A am longer using an old FG cvs version ( before that last Update from Mathias) I never notice that we could have a problem with solid carriers, Clemenceau, Foch , Arromanches, Eisenhower. Taking off of LFTH I am using the Dave Culp Aircrafts and others from me. I concluded that everything was right. Isn't it an other reason, which could explain the Jano problem ? Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire |
From: Mathias F. <Mat...@gm...> - 2009-05-16 17:51:50
|
Hi, On Monday 13 April 2009 15:12:29 jean pellotier wrote: > i tested, starting FG in KLSV, going to KHAF with location menu, and > after 50 nm cruise to the Carl Vinson, and, he is solid now, but the > arresting wires don't work in this case. > > second try, starting on the carrier deck, all is fine. > using the location menu has same effects on other carriers near LFTH > (got foch, clemenceau and eisenhower here), none of them have a working > wire if i come near with location menu from far, but now they are solid > > btw with little front wind, little fuel, the f14 don't need the wires to > stop on the carrier :). Ok, an other attempt. I believe that it should be fixed with the checkin from a minute ago. We had an other issue with delayed loaded AI models. Can you retest please? Greetings Mathias |
From: gerard r. <gh...@gm...> - 2009-03-24 12:27:02
|
On mardi 24 mars 2009, Mathias Fröhlich wrote: > Hi, > > On Monday 23 March 2009 13:14:49 gerard robin wrote: SNIP > > Hmm, I have now tried with the default cessna. > Due to the low approach speed this works well. > Starting at the Nimitz and landing there. Applying brakes brings the cessna > to rest wrt the carrier. So no problem. > Resetting flightgear several times with the cessna on the carriers deck, > applying brakes, works well. > Starting at KSFO and landing on the carrier, applying brakes makes the > cessna stick on the moving carrier. So again no problem. > > Can you confirm that the cessna works for you too? > Does the F-8 Still not work? > Really current cvs? Also simgear? > > You told about resetting the simulation? > What are the exact conditions when that problem happens? > > May by I will need your F-8 and may be training hours to land on the > carrier with that bird :) > > Greetings > > Mathias > You are right the Cessna is correct tested now, on the Eisenhower speed 10 knots. I have tried with Clemenceau and F8 both last version updated ( for some reason, ONLY available here http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/tux/index-en.html ) The result of that test seems right, too. I mainly noticed the problem with an other light turbine aircraft ( Fouga). However digging again into it ( the strange behaviour) , i suspect, now, that it could be coming from my gears definitions which introduce some random oscillations, only when i land ( again) on the Carrier. To conclude, forget the noise, at least, until i will have found i my side the origin of the problem. -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire |