Board index FlightGear Development Aircraft

Announcing New UAV MQ-9 Predator B

Questions and discussion about creating aircraft. Flight dynamics, 3d models, cockpits, systems, animation, textures.

Re: Announcing New UAV MQ-9 Predator B

Postby erik » Fri Jul 08, 2016 10:37 am

Looking at the difference between the MQ-9-JSBSim2.xml and mine it looks like you will only loose the Particles system line so that has to be added again:
Code: Select all
<system file="Particles"/>


Also, the Tubroprop engine model has no 'engines/engine[0]/n2' property so that has to be renamed to 'engines/engine[0]/n1' got proper sound and model animations.

Erik
erik
 
Posts: 1521
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:41 pm

Re: Announcing New UAV MQ-9 Predator B

Postby falafel » Fri Jul 08, 2016 11:37 am

I merged your changes in this branch.
It seems to work. Please send me feedback.

https://github.com/meirm/MQ-9/tree/hud_dev
falafel
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:42 am
Callsign: falafel
Version: 2
OS: Linux

Re: Announcing New UAV MQ-9 Predator B

Postby falafel » Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:08 pm

I just fixed MQ-9-JSBSim2.xml as I did with MQ-9-JSBSim.xml . I kept the Particles.
erik wrote in Fri Jul 08, 2016 10:37 am:Looking at the difference between the MQ-9-JSBSim2.xml and mine it looks like you will only loose the Particles system line so that has to be added again:
Code: Select all
<system file="Particles"/>


Also, the Tubroprop engine model has no 'engines/engine[0]/n2' property so that has to be renamed to 'engines/engine[0]/n1' got proper sound and model animations.

Erik
falafel
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:42 am
Callsign: falafel
Version: 2
OS: Linux

Re: Announcing New UAV MQ-9 Predator B

Postby falafel » Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:40 pm

Update on HUD.
The new hud now shows the TGT geopos using flightgear geo outputs, clicking anywhere on the screen Flightgear returns the LAT,LON,ELEV of that point.

From Nasal/geo.nas
# QUERY METHODS:
#
# .is_defined() ... returns whether the coords are defined
# .dump() ... outputs coordinates
# .course_to(<coord>) ... returns course to another geo.Coord instance (degree)
# .distance_to(<coord>) ... returns distance in m along Earth curvature, ignoring altitudes
# useful for map distance
# .direct_distance_to(<coord>) ... distance in m direct, considers altitude,
# but cuts through Earth surface
falafel
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:42 am
Callsign: falafel
Version: 2
OS: Linux

Re: Announcing New UAV MQ-9 Predator B

Postby falafel » Fri Jul 08, 2016 3:16 pm

Hud target data is now accurate, it uses geo.nas and new tracking.nas file. Github master branch has a fix, now Bearing to target and distance get updates every 0.1 sec.

Image
Last edited by falafel on Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
falafel
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:42 am
Callsign: falafel
Version: 2
OS: Linux

Re: Announcing New UAV MQ-9 Predator B

Postby wlbragg » Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:03 pm

After testing the"new" FDM, it appears to have corrected the pitch and stall sensitivity and the thrust issues.

I noticed another thing that may need some tweaking. The landing gear spring coeff's don't seem to be tuned correctly. If you land hard or while crabbing it does the out of control "super ball bounce".

Also IMO, the flight controls are too sensitive (at least using a mouse to control the flight controls).

And as a suggestion, I still would limit this to one version that includes bombable with the option to not have it active. It seems unnecessary to have to deal with the duplicate clutter just to exclude or include the bombable behavior.

Looking really good though, so much potential with this one.
Kansas(2-27-15)/Ohio/Midwest scenery development.
KEQA (2-27-15), 3AU, KRCP Airport Layout
User avatar
wlbragg
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:31 pm
Location: Kansas (Tornado Alley), USA
Callsign: WC2020
Version: next
OS: Win10/Debain/nVGT640

Re: Announcing New UAV MQ-9 Predator B

Postby falafel » Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:10 pm

Thanks for the feedback. If you can do a zip file I will check the differences and integrate them. If you can use git, then even better.
I still need to test it with a joystick.
falafel
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:42 am
Callsign: falafel
Version: 2
OS: Linux

Re: Announcing New UAV MQ-9 Predator B

Postby PINTO » Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:46 pm

Not trying to sound negative here, but is there still a lot of the community that uses Bombable? The codebase hasn't been updated in a while, and has several outstanding bugs. OPRF/KSUU Crew uses a different system altogether that is entirely included in the aircraft, doesn't require the Bombable add-in, and is very easy to turn on and off with a single property.

There's a mostly generic guided-missiles.nas that has the capability to control dumb bombs, guided missiles, cruise missiles, etc.. All it needs is the ordinance defined in XML, a radar contact, and a trigger, and it can handle the rest.

There's also a damage.nas that ties into the default failure manager and extends to custom failures if the aircraft has any (for instance, the Viggen has a lot of non-default failure modes).
Actively developing the MiG-21bis (github repo) (forum thread) (dev discord) (fg wiki)

http://opredflag.com is an active flightgear dogfighting community (using a system that isn’t bombable)
User avatar
PINTO
 
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:28 pm
Callsign: pinto
Version: 2016.3.0
OS: Win10

Re: Announcing New UAV MQ-9 Predator B

Postby Thorsten » Fri Jul 08, 2016 6:06 pm

Not trying to sound negative here, but is there still a lot of the community that uses Bombable?


It has quite able AI opponents, something that seems unique.

There's also a damage.nas that ties into the default failure manager and extends to custom failures if the aircraft has any (for instance, the Viggen has a lot of non-default failure modes).


If you want realistic failures, you have to code them deep into the systems definition of your airplane - no generic package will ever capture the intricacies of how effects of failing systems cascade down the chain or what instrument readings for failing equipment will show. The default failure manager is a simple cartoon, nothing more.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11135
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Announcing New UAV MQ-9 Predator B

Postby wlbragg » Fri Jul 08, 2016 6:18 pm

OPRF/KSUU Crew uses a different system altogether that is entirely included in the aircraft,

I didn't know OPRF/KSUU Crew uses a different system. It would be nice to have a standard or at least a real good description and documentation of what each system is capable of and how they work.

Update to my previous post.

I was testing the new FDM you incorporated into your repo (at least that was my understanding). Since then I have created my own local branch and combined the original "bombable" version FDM with Erik's FDM and now I am comparing it to your branch of basically the same thing to see if we both ended up with equal characteristics (technically they should be the same).

Also I am not experiencing the same sensitivity with the control surfaces with either version as I was, so I guess that was a fluke of that session only.

The bombable add-on appears to be working well, I am able to reek havoc with this UAV. :)
Kansas(2-27-15)/Ohio/Midwest scenery development.
KEQA (2-27-15), 3AU, KRCP Airport Layout
User avatar
wlbragg
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:31 pm
Location: Kansas (Tornado Alley), USA
Callsign: WC2020
Version: next
OS: Win10/Debain/nVGT640

Re: Announcing New UAV MQ-9 Predator B

Postby PINTO » Fri Jul 08, 2016 6:33 pm

Thorsten wrote in Fri Jul 08, 2016 6:06 pm:It has quite able AI opponents, something that seems unique.


So I made it off your ignore list? Awesome!
The AI is okay, but it's nothing to write home about in my opinion. But this is all opinion, so we're probably going to disagree with this.
I have working AI "aircraft" that exist over MP as another plane (so can be seen by everyone - that's a big deal to OPRF) and can be controlled by MP chat using this system; this includes SAM sites and a flying drone. Yes, this requires multiple computers or multiple instances of FG to be running, but it's worth it for what we want to do with it.

Thorsten wrote in Fri Jul 08, 2016 6:06 pm:If you want realistic failures, you have to code them deep into the systems definition of your airplane - no generic package will ever capture the intricacies of how effects of failing systems cascade down the chain or what instrument readings for failing equipment will show. The default failure manager is a simple cartoon, nothing more.


Hence why I said damage.nas extends to any custom failures that "have been coded deep into the systems definition of your airplane" - as long as your able to add them as a custom failure via this method. It takes damage taken from missiles/guns/bombs, and applies those to failures you've coded into the aircraft. No need to rag on it until you try it. Maybe you should come out dogfighting with us sometime and see?

wlbragg wrote in Fri Jul 08, 2016 6:18 pm:I didn't know OPRF/KSUU Crew uses a different system.

Yeah, I get the feeling most people think we use bombable. We tried it in the past, but it was too buggy and hit-or-miss for us, and having another layer of installation complexity for new fliers just made it not worth it. Now it's just "install this aircraft, and off you go!"
Actively developing the MiG-21bis (github repo) (forum thread) (dev discord) (fg wiki)

http://opredflag.com is an active flightgear dogfighting community (using a system that isn’t bombable)
User avatar
PINTO
 
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:28 pm
Callsign: pinto
Version: 2016.3.0
OS: Win10

Re: Announcing New UAV MQ-9 Predator B

Postby falafel » Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:01 pm

Pinto,
You are welcome to bring changes aboard.
I am not aware of any other system besides bombable, I saw it is aged, but I thought it all there is.

PINTO wrote in Fri Jul 08, 2016 6:33 pm:
Thorsten wrote in Fri Jul 08, 2016 6:06 pm:It has quite able AI opponents, something that seems unique.


So I made it off your ignore list? Awesome!
The AI is okay, but it's nothing to write home about in my opinion. But this is all opinion, so we're probably going to disagree with this.
I have working AI "aircraft" that exist over MP as another plane (so can be seen by everyone - that's a big deal to OPRF) and can be controlled by MP chat using this system; this includes SAM sites and a flying drone. Yes, this requires multiple computers or multiple instances of FG to be running, but it's worth it for what we want to do with it.

Thorsten wrote in Fri Jul 08, 2016 6:06 pm:If you want realistic failures, you have to code them deep into the systems definition of your airplane - no generic package will ever capture the intricacies of how effects of failing systems cascade down the chain or what instrument readings for failing equipment will show. The default failure manager is a simple cartoon, nothing more.


Hence why I said damage.nas extends to any custom failures that "have been coded deep into the systems definition of your airplane" - as long as your able to add them as a custom failure via this method. It takes damage taken from missiles/guns/bombs, and applies those to failures you've coded into the aircraft. No need to rag on it until you try it. Maybe you should come out dogfighting with us sometime and see?

wlbragg wrote in Fri Jul 08, 2016 6:18 pm:I didn't know OPRF/KSUU Crew uses a different system.

Yeah, I get the feeling most people think we use bombable. We tried it in the past, but it was too buggy and hit-or-miss for us, and having another layer of installation complexity for new fliers just made it not worth it. Now it's just "install this aircraft, and off you go!"
falafel
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:42 am
Callsign: falafel
Version: 2
OS: Linux

Re: Announcing New UAV MQ-9 Predator B

Postby wlbragg » Sat Jul 09, 2016 3:59 am

One other comment, is this suppose to be the MQ-1 Predator B or the MQ-9 Reaper?
Kansas(2-27-15)/Ohio/Midwest scenery development.
KEQA (2-27-15), 3AU, KRCP Airport Layout
User avatar
wlbragg
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:31 pm
Location: Kansas (Tornado Alley), USA
Callsign: WC2020
Version: next
OS: Win10/Debain/nVGT640

Re: Announcing New UAV MQ-9 Predator B

Postby Thorsten » Sat Jul 09, 2016 5:43 am

but it's worth it for what we want to do with it.


vs.

Not trying to sound negative here, but is there still a lot of the community that uses Bombable?


That seems to be the point here, no? Something that doesn't fit your particular use case (fair enough) and which you don't use seems obsolete to you. Here's the news - FG has other use cases than yours, communities besides yours and AI opponents for dogfighting without using a second computer etc. is a unique feature of interest to some - deal with it.

Hence why I said damage.nas extends to any custom failures that "have been coded deep into the systems definition of your airplane" - as long as your able to add them as a custom failure via this method.


Yes - that's what's the cartoon. A binary 'fail/serviceable' model of individual components is hardly realistic. An iced pitot tube isn't necessarily 'off' - it might simply give you the wrong reading for instance. A servo-actuator might not be simply off, it might just not be able to deliver the full force. A damaged engine might still work - but overheat, guzzle additional fuel, not be able to sustain some RPM, degrade over time,...
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11135
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Announcing New UAV MQ-9 Predator B

Postby J Maverick 16 » Sat Jul 09, 2016 9:25 am

Thorsten wrote in Sat Jul 09, 2016 5:43 am:That seems to be the point here, no? Something that doesn't fit your particular use case (fair enough) and which you don't use seems obsolete to you. Here's the news - FG has other use cases than yours, communities besides yours and AI opponents for dogfighting without using a second computer etc. is a unique feature of interest to some - deal with it.

Honestly, I think a very few people uses Bombable nowadays.
Also, I don't see the fun at dogfighting against AI when with the damage code you have the opportunity to deal with REAL pilots to test your/his skills. The damage code can be fitted in ANY FG aircraft without problems, just need a few tweaks from aircraft to aircraft.
Maybe you're not interested in such a topic like dogfighting or similar military stuff and you're just defending what is the "normal way" to deal with such things in FG which is Bombable.
It's not about replacing it with the damage.nas, it's just pointing to a recent alternative to Bombable which can be easily be included to give a nice experience to pilots who are more inclined in military aviation.
If you just want to try it, just spawn around Nevada and we'll show you who it works when dogfighting. ;)
Regards, Maverick
Breakin' the sound barrier every day!

Scenery designer, basic livery maker, aircraft developer (current projects: F-16, UH-60).
Using Thrustmaster FCS Flight Pack.
Follow me also on Instagram & Twitter @j_maverick16 and YouTube.
User avatar
J Maverick 16
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:26 pm
Location: Northern Italy
Callsign: J-Mav16, REBEL84
Version: 2019.1.1
OS: macOS 10.12

PreviousNext

Return to Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BLEXBot [Bot], PK-DNZ_107 and 3 guests