arno54

Khamsin and myself have decided to discontinue the Trojan and the Nimitz, and Cameron agreed. Therefore, the K&A section of this forum has become unuseful. That's why the Chipmunk subject has been displaced here .

the inputs are FC_ptch, FC_roll, where FC stands for FlightControls. The "yoke" dr read the actual deltas of the yoke, if there is none, it will not work. FC dr read the current logic input.

Unfortunately no, the java thing just endlessly spirals, never loading the image. Send these on my personnal email, I have no storage limit with gmail :-)

Hello, first please accept my apologizes for this unusually late answer - heavy personnal business here, but I'm now back in business :-) Second, you have to know that we have about any doc that was ever printed on the subject Actually, K&A have for a politics not to do engage in a project if we don't. About the version : it's A1. Nice to see there is some real knowers about that little vintage bird ! Now, you tell about "significant differences". Well, first of all, I have to make clear that it's quite unlikely you can spot any difference between the "true" bird and the one on screenshots. Had you been a beta-tester, I could agree, but spotting differences on a screenshot while even the rivets placements are checked on blue print and IRL examination seems...well...unlikely. And as is printed on the screenshots, these are yet WIP's Please keep in mind that the PoH, whatever the plane, is very rarely describing the plane geometry as it really is. For instance, after checking tenths of real cockpits, we found none that 100% fits any manual. Manuals are a solid basis when it comes to performances, or to the original equipment or to technical requisits, BUT there's no way a manual can tell the shape or the colors or even the instruments in a reliable way. This would indeed be true with some newer birds such as the CRJ-200, which are highly integrated during the production process, but this is DEFINITELY not true when it comes to vintage birds. Basically there should be one PoH for one built bird - I'm barely exagerating. That being said ! If you have spotted differences between what SHOULD be and what ACTUALLY is, don't hesitate to write to me arno54xpfr[at]gmail.com . I can ensure you that we are very focused on precisions, I should even say picky on details. And quite open-minded to suggestions, be it corrections or simply ideas and remarks. So, if you have remarks to make, you're welcome.

You mention DG1001. What is the difference with the "1000" ? I found nothing about a specific "1001M" : is it a self-launcher, too ?

in cycledump.txt you will find this : Now for MI from FUSELAGE: The frontal area is 2.132 square meters. The side area is 9.222 square meters. The top area is 8.318 square meters. (for instance) now for the fuselage drag, i came with : math.sqr(fusecd) * frontalArea / sideArea this adds to total wing drag and this total uses no polar but a linear projection that substracts from total lift for a given speed. this explains 3 things : why a very slight change in frontal area results in a major change in lift (actually, in vertical speed) why a very slight change in fusecd has tremendous impact on rolling distance before take-off why elongating the plane increases thickness to absurd proportions another way to say it, is that fusecd actually acts straight onto thickness, but not really on drag. I might be wrong, but countless hours on thickness troubles give me a 99% certainty. In the end, as this could not be solved, I decided to use 0 fusecd everytime it's possible, and to set the overall drag through wing drag, using custom airfoils - I was never able to set correct thickness in an other manner.

Well... I've got the feeling that, if you have a list, NOW is the right time to share it...

Impressed... if it flies as well as it looks, this is gonna be a within-top-3 must-have...

--Oopsy ! double post -

I can't resist to share the proudness I have when I see the current state of the bird... She will enter her beta-testing phase by the end of the week. The picture here was made in xp10, and what we see, is that this kind of plane with glass-canopy (as opposed to closed cockpit such as for the B17) does wonders with dynamic shadows. The colors are not 100% definitive, but what you see now is really close to what she will eventually look like. And I dare say, it's not something you see every morning in Xplane :-)

That's a tough question I would have liked to avoid. It turns out that it seems pretty difficult. This has nothing to do with Cameron's work or behaviour or whatever, but, sometime poeples with true respect with each other can't find an agreement, and to date, this is the case. So, I'd say, unfortunately, the Chip quite likely will not be released at XA. Well... nothing is definitively set yet, I keep my options (and my mind) open.

As far as we can say, yes. But, one has to be aware that, to date, we do not have a 100% functionnal copy of xplane. Furthermore, XPX will probably evolve quite fast after the first official releases - so it's very difficult to be 100% affirmative. Plus, the main features of the plane involve logics over very long periods - I'll soon have a special report about this - and a 10mn trial is nowhere near what is needed to confirm the proper behaviour of the custom avionics. What is clear, nonetheless, is that we will track her behaviour in XPX, so as to fix anything that would get jammed along XP updates.

Last Stage ! Khamsin just delivered, a couple of hours ago, the cockpit of the plane. Immediately tested in-game, and...my godness... woaw. Pictures to come very soon. Now I have the last work to do, install in this cockpit the animations and systems that were coded separately. Meanwhile, Khamsin will texture the exterior of the plane, we should have this done roughly at the same moment - we're speaking of days, here. Yes, that's the last leg of this road, an hour ago, we saw in-game what she will really look like. The first flight with all parts set onto the acf file is always a very moving, touching moment. She flew today !

If I can run it comfortably enough on an asus eeepc 904... what kind of pc do you have that could possibly be weaker than that ???? Actually I'm 100% sure there is NO radio-nav systems ;-) You should enjoy this bird - for those who still understand what piloting really means : looking outside and finding his way home by his own skills. THIS, is fun.

If I can run it comfortably enough on an asus eeepc 904... what kind of pc do you have that could possibly be weaker than that ???? Once I was out of sight of the starting airfield, I started looking around the cockpit for the VOR tuner. At that point I realised this Chipmunk had no VOR. I think it might have had an ADF but I'm not even sure of that! Actually I'm 100% sure there is NO radio-nav systems ;-)

While I'm coding the Chipmunk to have it has realistic as it gets (I'm mimicing real life failures, one by one...), khamsin is now texturing the bird. The result, even at this very early stage, is... well... I let you find the right words ! And remember, this is only the first layer... it's even not really "textured" yet !

As for sceneries, there is no "easy" way - unless you get your hands under the hood. FS2XP conversions provide a base, but the result will never be what you expected. Furthermore, it's today a relatively bad ideas, as sceneries for fsx are not done to be optimized, so you get lots of objects with very weird uv-mapping, what is much more prone to kill your frame rate than to enhance your vfr flying. As for planes, the short answer is "no". One could do it, but the work involved would be greater than a from-scratch creation, unless you're fluent in plane making in both sims (but then you would not have asked in the first place) and you are given the original blend (or ac3d or whatever) files. So unfortunately, both sim worlds are quite separated.

Hi Auster, let's be clear about this : the Chip is definitely a V9 plane. And it's definitely intended for low-end computers : actually, if I can use it, everyone else can (as I had to seriously tweak my XP folder simply to be able to run the sim!). Right now, we have no plan for biplane nor high-winged plane, but who knows? Our current main concern is to get the Chip ready , one bird at a time !

How could we have done otherwise? We tested the Chipmunk on XP10... Well, she passes the testing session successfully ! running as expected, no bug, and over 100FPS on Khamsin's test machine. Now we're giving the very last hand to the bird herself, choosing a programming platform, sorting out the features that will be or not present in the V1.0. In some days we should be able to publish in-game pics and videos. Stay tuned :-)

Well... I guess I won't have any FPS issues on that one :-) Unhandled exception: EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION (C0000005) Flags=0, Address = 0x00000000 0) 0x00a8def7 (X-Plane.exe + 6872823) 1) 0x008e494c (X-Plane.exe + 5130572) 2) 0x0048335d (X-Plane.exe + 537437) 3) 0x7c80b729 (kernel32.dll + 46889) Quiting on lauch (CTD), no way to fire it up. Let's way and see for the coming updates, I might be more lucky.

Is it some kind of joke? Last Updated: Jul 28 2009 02:32 AM Well, that's a very personnal conception of "new"... And it refers to the plane I gave the link to, ONE post up.

Certainely not. Try these ones : http://xpfr.org/?body=aero_accueil&seek=Marganski+MDM-1+Fox&x=0&y=0

It's not directly possible. What you can do is apply the section to the one left next, then report lengh placement, and so on until you've erased over-numbered sections, then reduce the number of sections to disengage the last ones.

Don't be sorry, I know there was no bad meanning as far as you're concerned :-)

Well, it happens that neither K nor I do like the word "guru" very much, even though it had here no offending intend. We tend to consider ourselves as "craftsmen" (I hope google-translate was efficient on this one), because Guru (at least in french?) sounds a bit like some bad, mean magician or a sect leader. In the xplane-word use of this word, it refers too as someone who in a way "holds the truth", "knows", where our work is more like the one of students, inventing, re-inventing wheel sometimes, learning and in anycase, trying to have a "scientific" angle on things, while in the same time, trying to imagine new tricks (such as the Flight Instructor mode or the bombing sessions of the T28). Yes, I guess craftsmen is the right word to describe us. Or at least, that's the way we'd be pleased to be considered as.