Alouette III overhaul

[wkitty42]

I'm running 2017 3.1, at the moment.

ahhh... ok... that mini-profile over there --> is what confused me

[Thorsten]

if anyone wants to have a go at it, I'm happy to take merge requests for the engine. I don't think I'll have the time to delve into turbine simulation in JSBSim any time soon...

[bugman]

aviastar.org wrote in http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/snias_alu3.php

In June 1960 an Alouette III with seven people aboard demonstrated its extraordinary performance by making landings and take-offs at an altitude of 4810m on Mont Blanc in the French Alps. Five months later the same Alouette III with two crew and a 250kg payload made landings and take-offs at an altitude of 6004m in the Himalayas - both hitherto unprecedented achievements for a helicopter.

Regards,
Edward

[bugman]

Hi, yes this should be doable, if the model was lighter. According to the flight manual, empty weight is 1122kg/2474lb and service ceiling given for different takeoff weights is: 1700kg=6000m, 1900=5250m, 2100kg=4000m, 2200kg=3200m. If I checked it correctly, the model is at max gross weight 2200kg/4850lb.

[Thorsten]

Small detour trying something I wanted to learn for a while - thanks to the groundwork of Detlef Faber, we have a very easy way of adding crew.

You can now opt to fly together with

* the original, somewhat humorless looking dude:



* charming Amelia:



Amelia actually is a bit fidgety and likes to look around - but she doesn't chat. Yet.

[Thorsten]

Hm, without altering the engine definitions, I've taken her to 7500 ft without any issues. She kept climbing a bit slower in the end, but I was not at any limit by far.

Edit: Okay, made a landing and takeoff at 6500 and flew her above the clouds at 12.000 ft.

[bugman]

I think I'll get my coat now I just happily flew the bird to +20 000ft, not observing anything I thought I saw before.

[wlbragg]

I got it to 27,700 and that was as high as it wanted to go. Curious what is the highest altitude it will start at?

[Thorsten]

I guess the upshot is - we can safely commit the enclosing <function> tags without altering behavior...

[N-SCOT]

I've chuckled quite a bit lately regarding the impact of female pilot discussions (and deletions) on this thread. Having had an up close and personal experience with how (in)Human Resources deal with these things, whether completely real or imagined, I feel compelled to comment.

Altho' not visible now, there have been 2 female models proposed in this thread. The notion that the presentation of either one to the community is somehow better or not sexist is, IMHO, the feces of a male cow.

The deleted female model is, of course, unrealistic. Well, unless you go to Van Nuys, CA. However, if the front anatomy were to be toned down a tad, it actually gets approval from an actual FG woman, with particular kudos for the hair.

The model still visible in the thread is also anatomically imperfect, ironically in the same area that caused complaint / message deletion. Unless Amelia is flying upside down there is no way that this depiction is close to correct. Is this somehow better? Has there been any feedback from any ladies on this model?

Also, consider the following from an HR viewpoint.
Guy description - humorless
Gal description - fidgety but puzzlingly not chatty. Yet.

Totally sexist.

But I'd like to believe that we live in the real world here, and are respectful AND pragmatic. Perhaps if some lady fliers were consulted or part of the pilot design process, a better female version could be made. The notion that a man can adequately speak for women regarding women's issues is ridiculous.

What we need here, ladies and gentlemen is gender based feedback to improve what we have in order to make FG as inclusive as it can be. The floor is open to further discussion, and I hope some ladies provide input.

G

[Thorsten]

Gal description - fidgety but puzzlingly not chatty. Yet.

Actually, I suspect the role model Detlef had in mind when coming up with the 3d mesh and the name (and I definitely have in mind) is Amelia Earhart. In particular I might be thinking of her somewhat fictional appearance in Night at the Museum II - where she's a very competent and outspoken character - but also not someone who can just sit still for an extended period of time.

In fact I was contemplating today whether people would generally share my kind of humor having that kind of Amelia sitting next to them and commenting on their flying skills... since she (driven by a few PID controllers) would probably fly the craft much better than many of us when she was asked to take over.

And the facts are that the original male pilot model looks really humorless...

The notion that a man can adequately speak for women regarding women's issues is ridiculous.

Sorry, but I don't see piloting as a gender-dependent skill set.

The model still visible in the thread is also anatomically imperfect,

Pretty much all human 3d models in FG are anatomically imperfect - and if they were perfect, they'd still have to be animated with some effort to look lifelike. Unless you come up with a better model that is ready for animation (which the walker technology is), that's a very cheap point to score. This is a flightsim, not a human body animation sim.

[Thorsten]

Gal description - fidgety but puzzlingly not chatty. Yet.

Upon more reflection, I think you missed the main point here by a mile - which is that unlike the old pilot model, this one doesn't sit still like a puppet but moves like a person having nothing to do at the moment yet having to sit still would.

[N-SCOT]

Thorsten,

It is certainly not my intent to argue or bandy semantics with you. Indeed, the community is benefitted by such discussions. For example, you wrote that ...human 3D models in FG are anatomically imperfect... and indicated a regard as a "cheap point". I agree with this statement. I see nothing that is served by the introduction of a needless negative. However, within the CONTEXT of the thread, part of the discussion was deleted with regard to anatomical imperfection. Is the community better served by this decision? Would not have fruitful, and possibly educational discussion been a better result?

You note that you don't see piloting as a gender-dependent skill set. I'd propose that your perceptions or your own personal value systems (which may or may not be shared with others) have yet to embrace the notion that the representation of the female form in a sim, whether Amelia in FG or Lara Croft in Tomb Raider is a women's issue. I think that YOU have missed the point. And that's absolutely OK, as long as it does provoke thought in the end.

I did bring up the HR aspect as this is a real thing. Amelia is fidgety. And perhaps in the future chatty. Why not the guy? The one we've had around for years? This is stereotyping based on gender. Now it may well be that (and probably is) the thought was to try out new stuff on a new model, without any regard to stereotyping. And this is my point. There is reality. There is perception. And THAT, my friend, is why we need transparency, engagement and discussion, NOT censorship and unrequested negativity.

Respectfully,

G

[wlbragg]

I did bring up the HR aspect as this is a real thing.

I wonder how much of this discussion is elevated by the political climate here in the USA. At least for anyone on this side of the pond. For context, there is a wave of this type of discussion going on here and fervent discussion about sexual harassment. Just saying. I have to admit, when I first read the removed comment it made me take pause.

[Hooray]

Amelia actually is a bit fidgety and likes to look around - but she doesn't chat. Yet.

not sure if you were joking or not - but technically, there really isn't anything missing to animate a "face texture", and hook up the whole thing to the built-in Flite TTS engine to come up with plausible-looking mouth movements.

Something like that could probably add some realism for certain use-cases (think tutorials, copilot, flight instructor).

As you may remember, I once posted code demonstrating how to add an arbitrary Canvas to the ogel's pilot.
The same approach would work for arbitrary photographs.

Which is to say that people could use all sorts of avatars, including their own photographs - which may be of interest to online/multiplayer and VA folks - e.g. the photograph could even be fetched via http.

(obviously, that would also work for texturing hands etc)