bugman wrote in Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:19 am:Helijah's position is that a poorly written JSBSim FDM will allow a plane to bounce off the ground, land on water, and do other weird thing.
bugman wrote in Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:19 am:I assume that is a language issue communicating these points with the words "not respecting FG internal properties", i.e. "properties" is used as a common language term rather than referring to the "property tree" which is causing a lot of confusion between all parties. Emmanuel, is this interpretation correct?
Octal450 wrote in Fri Jul 10, 2020 4:58 pm:Most likely considering it is through Google Translate. JSBsim not respecting the property-tree makes 0 sense whatsoever.
And in fact, that is still true today. Crank up the springs on the ground reactions and you'll see what I mean.
All I can tell you is to make your own tests because if the data is real, the sensations you will have while flying, the impressions you will feel will be much more important than anything else.
Note that the default YASim crashing behavior - a "lawn dart" as you call it - is actually a deliberate and ancient choice by the FlightGear developers. Well, that's what I remember anyway. It has to do with keeping the core of the flight sim non-violent.
Thorsten wrote in Sat Jul 11, 2020 7:16 am:And in fact, that is still true today. Crank up the springs on the ground reactions and you'll see what I mean.
Well - that's a feature. JSBSim isn't locked in the assumption that it simulates a plane - you can do a rubber-ball bouncing off the ground with it just as well and that's just as valid a use case - and in this case you require bouncing.
So it's true, if you instruct JSBSim to treat your plane like a rubber ball it will do that - the fault however is not with JSBSim in that case
YOu can make a good FDM from AeromatiC++ if you have the data and work hard enough at it.
That's not entirely true. AeromatiC++ also just modifies a generic flight model using input parameters. But it gets closer than YAsim because A, the generic model is better, and B, far more data is used.
swampthing wrote:AeromatiC++ anything can be changed
Return to Flight dynamics model
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest