Posts by ussiowa

Quote from Jetjockey10

Michael,

Sure we can have two moving objects at the same time. Look at all those wind turbines spinning the last year or so in Helgoland. Each one can face a different wind direction and rotate at a different speed. Or the animated guy and girl discussing advanced thrust vectors while standing next to the Cessna somewhere in Utah. How about Jeff’s Cessna and Piper shooting touch and go’s at Key West, or all those boats crisscrossing the harbors in the South Florida dlc as you fly overhead.

As Jan said these are animation, they have no "physical" existence, they're "sprites" in video game parlance. Jan answered.

We need a physical object, with physical properties, whether we can later attach it to a "sprite" for purely graphic purpose is not the issue for the moment.

What I meant (sorry for the slight inaccuracy) is "two moving objects with physical properties that are computed" at the same time.

Jan answered no basically, on 2 moving objects. I understand his explanation.

Jan thanks for answering AGAIN, It still gives me more clarity.

I didn't think of 2 planes, 1 object, that is an interesting concept too, but as he pointed out there are serious issues there too. Actually we should probably do 3 "planes" (towing plane, rope and glider) 1 object and under certain conditions the first two (towing plane and rope) detach and follow another path. That leads to a whole load of issues, and I don't know enough about Tmd yet to even have an idea of what to think. It certainly would be a hack.

Hmm I also like the "engine" idea, I've got to think about that one. I may not need 2 engines, maybe just one "auxiliary" engine that on catapult gets turned on and off (maybe a few seconds of fuel available), creates a huge amount of thrust (and not much "physical" presence so as not to disrupt the flight mechanics). Same engine backwards on cable arresting, same process, turns on if cable has been caught, turns off as speed decreases.

Harrier, hmmm, yeah not anytime soon from me unfortunately. Or Osprey, of F35 B, although it would be fun to have and a fun challenge to take, but I'd rather do a few other simpler, yet already plenty complicated, planes first.

I don't know about towing as it would require 2 planes in the air, and I'm not sure FS2 can handle that, certainly not in collaborative mode.

Now to me I think this is the same problem as the aircraft carrier. I think if we solve one, we solve the other, at least a winch launch.

If we can find a way to interact with the plane from exterior conditions (winch pull, catapult launch, arrestor cables) then all that is left would be some animation/graphics.

That's a big if though, I don't see any way right now to do it, maybe a moving colliding object. Since real physics are implemented maybe if we have an object (transparent) that comes into contact with the wheels, and then moves without breaking the plane, maybe that would work and push the plane.

Like a small transparent plane that comes into contact, then applies a huge amount of thrust (parametring the engines accordingly) or something to that effect. But, like the towing issue, I'm not sure how and if we can have two moving objects (with tsc files) at the same time. So far I don't think we can.

Maybe with the wind/air resistance model???

Maybe with modifying the thrust parameters on the go????

Quote from ZoSoChile

Please forgive me, that was one of my PC vs Mac jokes

I just tested your new TSC and can see that C1 does have some wobble.

Yeah I'm not sure I forgive you, but anyway.

Perfect for launching F35, makes it realistic. Between that and having no arrestor cables, it's the perfect F35 carrier landing simulation (it's a joke for the educated in matters of naval aviation). Too bad we don't have f35s,

Quote from coromon

Hi, I use aeroflyfs2 for VFR and I would like realistic windsocks. Thx

Ah interesting.

I guess it could be done with some airplane model properly parametered (each section, cannot move other than rotate, etc..) but I don't think FS2 can handle multiple "aircrafts" flying at the same time (unfortunately too, as I can't wait for collaborative flying, if ever), at least with TMD files, animation is different.

Just thinking out loud here.

Quote from Jet-Pack

Where can I get my hands on a usable carrier for practice?

I mean you could potentially modify an aircraft in such a way that a "catapult launch" or "catch hook landing" are possible but it's not worth the effort just for the sake of faking it.

Already answered, Appolo 50, although I haven't tried it, but trustworthy reports from my teammates is that it works.

"just for the sake of faking it". Isn't that the whole point of this software? I understand what you mean though.

So if it's realistic physics, wouldn't it be even easier, all we need is to hook up a cable with a given elasticity and dampening effect to the hook upon landing. Everything else will be taken care of automatically?

Same for the catapult, use a shuttle (maybe a transparent vehicle) that hooks the plane up and launches it (given acceleration on trigger)

Quote from Jetjockey10

Our other Michael (ussiowa) has some ideas on adapting the papi lights to make them useful for holding the glide path.

Apfelflieger already has it. Real meatball would be better of course., but that was a quick calculation and mock up if all we have is parametric PAPI lights. We can also do ILS, but I don't know how to do that. I have the meatball data, if one needs.

In the mean time enjoy:

Quote from ApfelFlieger

I would have an application that could interest one or the other Simmer:

- Air refuelling tankers can do their rounds forever in the simulation.

Bye, Michael

I won't even list possible application of animation, there are too many.

A parametric set of given paths would be awesome. A set of given paths would be awesome too (one could pick from the set, apply one object and one location). We'll get what we get and rest assured we'll do something with it.

Now tankers, we'd need to have vectoring (radio and radar) and fuel system functional in jets. I'd love that and help work on it if needed.

Quote from Jetjockey10

How about the Nimitz Battle group prowling up and down the East and West coast?

Now that we have somewhat useable aircraft carriers, I wish we'd find a solution for cables and catapults.

For cables maybe we could simulate a steep up slope without the plane moving up. Just an idea.

Maybe Jan has an idea how we could modify the tmb on the fly, or externally (if the hook hits a certain point on the deck, then the brake coeff becomes big or something to that effect).

Quote from Jetjockey10

Sounds good. Let's see if there is any interest. I am on vacation with only an iPad and phone.

No urgency, we have 5 years maybe.

Maybe we need to assemble a collective like we did on the Apollo 50. Ray?

I've got a few projects, mostly modifying an F18 into A10, SR71, Super hornet (F18E). All are military, all are twin engines.

Any taker?

Thank you, we need more stuff like that.

I want to develop aircraft, but the task is daunting, the more tools like this we get, the simpler it makes it. Every single step is great contribution.

I wish I knew how to do such coding, a graphical UI for aircraft dev, would be so great (like when you hover over the engine, you see what it requires and the values and can input new values, etc...)

Ce n'etait pas les toitures qui flickaient, et je me suis mal exprime, ca ne "flickait" pas comme ca non plus.

C'est quand tu survolait une zone, les tuiles ortho (le sol) apparaissait en haute definition a prosiite de l'avion, mais a une certaine distance c'etait de la basse definition. Quand tu survolait la zone elle devenait a haute definition, mais apres un certain temps elle repassait a basse definition.

Ca n'etait pas rapide, juste lie au survol.

Je n'ai pas verifie le fichier log, je le ferai eventuellement si je reinstalle. Merci de l'info.

Super. J'avais converti une partie du Jura, mais j'avais des problemes de tuiles qui flickaient on and off quand on survole. Je n'ai jamais eu de solution et peut etre ca venait dufait que ca recouvrait une partie avec les scenery de IPACS (Suisse).

Bref si tu veux les donnees, dis le moi, on trouvera un moyen.

Awesome, thanks. Two typos, the autogen for las vegas and salt lake city show "addon for FL".

jake, I started a Bandimere raceway project a while ago. I don't know if it fits within the area you showed but I gladly get going on it and give it to you. When we get a free minute that is.

Had same issue on eastern France a couple years ago where the scenery is close to existing switzerland scenery. I don't know if it's related, nobody ever offered any solution, I didn't find any but I didn't have time to investigate much further.

My name is Michael too, maybe that's the common link.

Quote from lenidcamper

For an object model with larger area, if there is a slight slope in the elevation data one edge may be floating or depressed.

I had to extend the pylon piers well below grade to avoid floating pylon legs on steeper grades

Well actually for such an example it'd be better to build the models with "legs". If we build the pylons with like a concrete rectangular or pyramidal leg underneath each foot, then they can be implemented at regular height, and the concrete footing will be more realistic too. We could have 2 versions, one with feet, and one without for flat land if that helps too, although I don't think 16 more polygons make a big difference.

Same principle applies to many things, including houses. We could build a bottom as a concrete block, or some wooden pile structure. When on slopes then the structure would show. Cars will be more of an issue, we need a roll and pitch angle. Boats won't be an issue

My 2 cents.

Meme en Francais, pas tres clair (Xbox 360? Aerofly? Aerosim?), Tu veux dire que tu utilises des joysticks xbox 360 sur un PC ou tu as FS2?

Je pense qu'il y a au moins 4-5 personnes ici qui sont souvent presents, et qui parlent Francais, Mais ca n'est pas un probleme, si on comprends la question on pourra la reposer en Anglais si il faut.

Comme Herve suggere, la page de reglage joystick est probablement la solution, cliques sur l'axe que tu veux changer (a droite ou a gauche) si il est inverse.

Thanks

Quote from Ozav8r

I use the Buttkicker and while it WORKS in AFS2 (using audio rather then USB input) it is very subdued due to the minimal range of audio spectrum generated by AFS2. Works MUCH better with X-plane and DCS!

I use BK, with a dedicated amplifier, and I can shake the chair pretty well. I can also filter the bandwidth and I don't think there is any spectrum issue. Yes sound channel is not the same as if we had a motion channel, but still it works pretty well. Now if I could get the audio in the rift and the BK at the same time without using some 3rd party crap software, that would be ideal.

Incidentally I only fly stuff that makes noise (jet, helo, F4U, etc..), no surprise airliner don't shake much, that would be the point usually.

I know it's not much but here is WIP. We have a key to start it, and breakers and switches to power up stuff.

Some needles are made, but I had to spend time sourcing the original instruments as the pict wasn't detailed enough to give me a sense of the 3D buttons and knobs and various other things. the bubble and vial of the Turn Coordinator are made too (do you guys need a point at the center of the vial curve to rotate the ball in it?)

I now have all pictures of all the instruments, so now is the time to speak if you want different instruments before I start on them

In the mean time I'm busy creating trucks and boats for the scenery guys

I could use picture of the other switches, the one that look like either rotating or pulling switches (red, blue, etc..) I couldn't find much to my liking.

First appearance at American air show:

It would be neat to have that one (even better the marine one (VTOL). Although I'm curious how difficult it would really be since one cannot just rely on traditional physics models anymore for flight simulation, the airplane software has such a big part in flying behavior.

Of course if one can implement all the airplane attitudes and vectoring, then pure physics would theoretically solve the rest (although heavy stall, and other non regular behavior may be tricky).

Anyway just thinking out loud.

And a nice A1 skyraider flight too!