Project open source code simulators

[treehog]

NOTE the syle will generally be spoecial edits every so often at certian posts as semi stickies to high light the direction advances


Please note this is not a wet weekend project and estimate will take some months plus ( EDIT NOV 12 TH 2006 320 days so far ) to get any half baked solution up and running

LUCKY LOTS OF DIFFERENT OUTFITS DOING SIMILAR WORK SO WILL WHENEVER POSSIBLE POST UP LINKS


Special edit 17th nov most all new info is posted at post no 29
RATHER THAN THE STARTING POST NO 1

I wish to use make an open source simulator for UAV and models with a difference from FMS in that he construcion of all the elements of the plane can be simuluated from installation of servos, cells ,motors ,recievers etc

If others want to join in and contribute feel free
and if others feel a tottaly different way would work better also feel free to tackle it that way

The computer I have is a mac g4 10.4

EDIT 30th oct 2006
now also have a compaq nx6110 some 6 months now

and if nessary can resuusitate my steam powered 350mghz wins 98 from the attic

My preference is probably to try to use
www.flightgear.org
open source code free program flight simulator
(full size planes but can be modified to models)
and its mac osx linux and wins platform useable

it allow the the user to dezine thier own planes (which can be models)
and to control the all vairables if they so wish

But would also consider other product that are free preferably with open source code rather than API if possible

It might be only solveable in intellegent time frames to have to use not free products such as xplane(hopefully not)

If others know if FMS supply the source code of thier useful free product for other project such as this and also if there is a linux and mac versions as that type of info isnt on thier site that I could see

The xplane program does allow a lot of what flight gear does
(make your own planes models even)but costs some $70 and I dont know what the problems are for API etc

So if others want to join in and contribute feel free

The first phase is to make outline non component realistic models of our own dezine that fly within thier envelope acro 3d etc similar to FMS using any suitable program and platform that can idealy run on all platforms windows linux and apple mac osx


Then the next phase is to make a program that can install all the component into the craft and supply information in real time about things like servos positions servo strain from load onboard battery supplys for recievers status etc forpetrol glow and electric platform models

From this in theory we could dezine models and verify all the peramiters and not be second guessing what size of servo for what sized planes etc

Then the next phase is to introduce UAV components into this program and realistically install all the wiring plugs software etc

From this in theory we could dezine models and verify all the peramiters for UAV and extreme test the software limits of the project without breaking anything
( the type of UAV will be more of the return to base type UAV project rather than cross country which requires collision avoidance systems and is,nt so relevant for the average modeler like me who wants to get his model back if somethings fails like rc signal or fog desends onto flying slope etc )

So I am open to any ideas or pointers or useful codes that can help get thing moving along

In order that the thread dont become unwieldy from debate my preference will be try to use this thread as a quazi sticky
reference example post I and post 29 have a lot of special edit updates

So if user x decides to make xml api to work with for example xplane product then if he could annonce on this thread that he going to tackle that section of the project at thread rc forumns blah blah
and occasionly do a report back to the main thread from the same starting point
using edit the option

I know the thread will be a little disjointed but if it gets too out of kilter can form a new starting point and or thread

Other threads that are sorta relevant to this project are

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=457281

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=420499


Special edit 30 oct 2006
reference post 29 for more special edits

The site http://nehe.gamedev.net has tution on how to learn and make 3d objects in openGL

This seems to be the alpabet or alpabet soup that makes most every simulator except mayby MS so worth getting to try out the lessons to get a handle on the problem

I think COLLADA this will be most likly way that API issues will be resolved and for that reason it jumps up the ladder

http://www.COLLADA.org



Special edit 17th nov info below is interesting to follow also

http://www.simgear.org/
this is a serious simulator tool kit add on for the flight gear which probably can accommadate surface use

also good thread for surface UAS pre UAV system at http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=596120
and flight gear build thread

http://www.flightgear.org/~curt/Mod...al/Rascal110_1/
http://www.flightgear.org/~curt/Mod...al/Rascal110_2/




Ralf

[othmanskn]

There is not doubt that it should be Flightgear.

I shall contribute whatever I can but at least I can do the beta testing.

[othmanskn]

There is not doubt that it should be Flightgear.

I shall contribute whatever I can but at least I can do the beta testing.
How is this project?

The originator of this thread is no longer interested but I'm busy with Clearview.

Although it is not free, it is more open and uses AC3D file format which is well documented.

That is all that we need.

Of course having the ability to design parameters like flightgear will be an advantage.

Maybe I shall dwell into designing parameters for flightgear and try to write scenery for RC use.

Clearview is ideal because it can use panoramic pictures which makes porting local sceneries very convenient. Just take photos.

However its physics leave a lot to be desired.

My work will concentrate on parameters design for RC use, i.e. making the planes smaller in size and see how it behaves.

It shouldn't take too long and we need to know the physics of flying small planes in order to appreciate and master RC flying.

[skirtz]

>However its physics leave a lot to be desired.

oth,

Stop writing nonsense about my program. What is exactly your experience flying RC planes or helicopters? How many years, what skill level, what are the models that you owned and flew personally? It is fine to provide others with your feedback on the program and not fine to speculate. Don't drag the CV name in the mud for no reason at all.

Thanks,
Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

[edfardos]

I can contribute. FlightGear obviously has the best license for everyone.

Clear View looks great - but sorry - it doesn't support Linux and that's
not an option for me, my time, nor my money.

--edfardos

[carlosponti]

any open source flight sim have a linux binary? i am a big linux person and i still have to dual boot due to realflight.

[othmanskn]

>However its physics leave a lot to be desired.

oth,

Stop writing nonsense about my program. What is exactly your experience flying RC planes or helicopters? How many years, what skill level, what are the models that you owned and flew personally? It is fine to provide others with your feedback on the program and not fine to speculate. Don't drag the CV name in the mud for no reason at all.

Thanks,
Stefan
http://rcflightsim.com

Clearview is great and it has lots of parameters that we can tweak but because of a few reasons, mostly for the requirements of speed they have to be limited.

Flightgear has no such qualm, I believe. It tried to be as perfect as possilbe. Not surprising when it is developed by University students and professors.
Actually it is not ideal for current hardware but the future may be different.

Actually I'm comparing Clearview with Flightgear, not even with REflex. I just hope that with time, Clearview will develop into the level of Flightgear in many areas.

I intend to study Flighgear parameters and develop a few models for it especially RC models and see how accurate its physics are. Once I find out, I shall give feedback to you or anybody who wants to hear and study as to parameters that need to be included.

One area that interests me is to understand the physics of aerodynamics such that the parameters that are required to be input are simple and yet the results are realistic.

We can tweak parameters in FMS and Clearview in order to make it fly the way it flies in perfect conditions, but this is not ideal. I like to put parameters that are actual, i.e. mass centre of gravity and thrust, or moments, parameters that can be measured and just input into the RC Sim to make it fly as realistic as possible without much tweaking.

My experience in RC flyng is limited to flying firebird clones and some vectored thrust electric planes.

Most of my experience is in Flight simulators and flying as passengers and viewers of flights.

It is not much. That is why I need useful feedback from others who are more experienced in their areas.

[othmanskn]

I can contribute. FlightGear obviously has the best license for everyone.

Clear View looks great - but sorry - it doesn't support Linux and that's
not an option for me, my time, nor my money.

--edfardos

Clearview is written in Java and based on openGL so there should be little problem in porting it to Linux.

These are the first steps towards understanding and realising an open source program:

1. compile the opensources.
The best available is Flightgear.

Who can contribute?

I cannot at the moment.

2. Understand flightgear model parameters and explain to others the best sources for documentation and tutorials.

3. Understand flightgear scenery and explain to others the best sources for documentation and tutorials.

4. Covert models in flightgear to RC sizes and comment on its behaviours.

5. Make RC size sceneries.

6. Study current practises in sceneries:
I'm studying panoramic sceneiries of Clearview, Reflex and others and I've make a few comments on Clearview because I'm using it for my own use.
I've written a few tutorials already.

7. Get the sources for developing panoramic photo sceneries. AT the moment Dersch's Java sources for Panorama Tools are a good place to start with.

Even without studying Flightgear's handling of sceneries, I've already fallen in love with panoramic photos and would like to dedicate my efforts towards developing into using panoramic photos for RC sim use.

8. Suggest flowcharts for source code development. By this time, there should be a clear project leader. If not, just work on our own levels of expertise. After all, there is already a few projects going on at Flight gears.

There could be several branches. E.g. I'd like to concentrate of Panoramic photos in 2D and 3D especially in its theoretical aspects. Although I can do coding, I hate that job and will only do as a last resort.


9. Get a home for this project. Sourceforge should be ideal.

Problems that I foresee:

i) Flightgear is so large. The one I installed is so slow even on my 2.8GHz Pentium 4. I have not investigated further.

So the first step is to remove a few unnecessary elements, not at the source code level but at the parameter level. E.g. we can take out the Traffic control elements and weather elements first. Or even reduce graphic details.

ii) Coordination problems. Not much worry but we should optimise our diversities and interests without sacrificing our fun.

We should communicate with the other Flightgear teams, I believe.

[othmanskn]

http://www.flightgear.org/features.html

Read these features.
"
1. JSBSim: JSBSim is a generic, 6DoF flight dynamics model for simulating the motion of flight vehicles. It is written in C++. JSBSim can be run in a standalone mode for batch runs, or it can be the driver for a larger simulation program that includes a visuals subsystem (such as FlightGear.) In both cases, aircraft are modeled in an XML configuration file, where the mass properties, aerodynamic and flight control properties are all defined.

2. YASim: This FDM is an integrated part of FlightGear and uses a different approach than JSBSim by simulating the effect of the airflow on the different parts of an aircraft. The advantage of this approach is that it is possible to perform the simulation based on geometry and mass information combined with more commonly available performance numbers for an aircraft. This allows for quickly constructing a plausibly behaving aircraft that matches published performance numbers without requiring all the traditional aerodynamic test data.

3. UIUC: This FDM is based on LaRCsim originally written by the NASA. UIUC extends the code by allowing aircraft configuration files instead and by adding code for simulation of aircraft under icing conditions.

UIUC (like JSBSim) uses lookup tables to retrieve the component aerodynamic force and moment coefficients for an aircraft... and then uses these coefficients to calculate the sum of the forces and moments acting on the aircraft.
"

You'll understand how advanced the physics in flightgear is compared to current RC Sims.

The advantage of YASim is that model parameters such as lift and drag, is derived from the geometry of the plane.

However it has the options of using traditional lumped component models, in JSBsim and LaRCSim, derived from "aerodynamic test data".

[othmanskn]

http://www.flightgear.org/Docs/getstart/getstartap4.html#x18-130000D.1


Good read. History of the development of Flightgear which is based on
LaRCSim.

We can start from LaRCSim also.

[treehog]

For whatever reason cant figure the notification for this thread never sent any notifications

Been very busy learning to use RUBY Ruby on rails PHP MySQL to help out a local LHS get a better web site up
Might be able to scronge up a few broken planes bits and bobs from him for payment to use for other projects
I dont believe in making fake web sites to practice on and so opted to do the site for the LHS AND IT SPIRRALED OUT OF CONTROL IN SIZE AND COMPLEXITY BUT SHOULD BE FINISHED BY AUGUST I HOPE

Flight gear was a dismal failure on Mac g4 laptop plane sits on runway and nothing makes it move

probably going to get the new MAC laptop or ordinary laptop next few weeks depending on cash flow from normal work not computer related

hopefully can then start to make simplex UAV fly point to point and work onwards

Ralph

[othmanskn]

I tried Flighgear 0.9.9 but got stuck with the P51D. So difficult to even fly. Must start engine first.

I don't need such realism, but will come handy.

I shall try to change the defaults to more manageable models.

I like to concentrate on 2 models:
A10 Yasim model.
This should be my favourite sim model.

JSBSim Cessna 172P with 3D cockpit.
This is a standard lumped component models that is well supported by another group at http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net/

The scenery is based on ground data, typial of flight sim in general but it has a complete set for the whole world based on public domain satellite data.

I've ordered the whole set of Flightgear 0.9.10 including the 13 GB world scenery, more for appreciating the Olson's work and nice family.

With such scenery data, it should be good enough for initial RC flights but to make it even more interesting we need to convert panoramic pictures to flight sim ground terrain data. The sky can be ignored because the sky is part of the weather system, or should be.

One scheme is to separte ground from the sky by finding the horizon. 2D panoramic pictures only store angular data at each pixel. From the angular data, we can estimate distances from the camera height. The higher we take it the more accurate it should be but this assumes a flat ground.

By ignoring greyish, whitish and bluish pixels above ground, we can assume anything else as ground based and pursue its pixel group to the ground level in order to estimate its distance. Once we know its distance, we can calculate how high and wide it is. Assuming we can identify similar pixel grouping of hills and trees.

I don't think Flightgear simulate ground conditions so that could be a separate project. REflex is more advanced in this respect.

My 10-year old nephew flew a couple of planes using Clearview just now. In half an hour he managed to land and control a few planes. I find it easy for him to control the Shocky Edge from Ken's web page. It is so light and responsive so I it is more of the latest Ikarus Shocky 3D electric planes which we don't have in stock. And that was using a PS2 joystick.

This flightgear project will only be useable for general use in 5 year's time once our PCs have improved further so Clearview and FSM is still the best for genaral use, while REflex, AFPD and G3 for the more serious ones.

I'm still downloading Flightgear 0,9.10. I haven't tried it on my upgraded 1.5G RAM.

[othmanskn]

Tried to create another model by renaming directories. Failed. the parameters are stored in .xml format and they all refer to absolute path names, not relative to the model directory. Too tediuous to change all the path names.

The best way will be just to maintain the same file name and directory and change parameters from there.

Flightgear do not use the directory or files names, but the contents of the .xml files and it stored the paths even after it was deleted or removed.

Don't know where to delete these stored path names.


Not much fun there so proceed to make my joystick work.

When the label of your joystick as recognised by Widnows, is not in any of the input/joystick/.... .xml files, Flightgear will proceed to go for the one with the name <default>, which happens to be a Mode 1 assignment with only 3 axis. and 3 buttons.

One solution should be to choose a .xml file with similar number of axes and buttons as your joystick and "add" the label similar to your joystick.

You can get the "name" from the program in bin\win32\js_demo.exe,
or from windows\settings\game controllers

I chose to configure my joystick first, using fsjs.exe which outputs it into a file js0.xml and js1.xml. I'm using joystick 1 so the configuration file is in js1. You can copy this file in the input/joystick directory without changing its name because the label of your joystick is already there.

I changed mine to the brand name, i.e. blaze, while its name is "Madrics Super Box".

It consists of 2 joysticks but I use joystick 1, instead of 0, just by accident because they are not labelled.

I managed to fly an F16 over Kota Kinabalu with full textures and clouds. The hills are there but no few buildings and no trees.

The main roads and rivers should be there.

I wonder what will happen if I make the model smaller? It is simulated using YASIM where geometries are taken from the model and aerodynamics calculated from there.

[Mr Rowl]

http://www.flightgear.org/features.html
You'll understand how advanced the physics in flightgear is compared to current RC Sims.


I disagree with this statement a lot. In fact, the three FDMs in FGFS are pretty inappropriate for a R/C simulator because (from the information I just looked at) they're designed for normal flight. R/C fixed wing fliying, on the other hand, generally involves a lot more stalling/high-alpha flight, and 3D flying involves handling interactions between different components (e.g. prop-wash going over control surfaces).

I would also say that the graphics in FGFS are nothing to get excited about either. So all in all I think the pain of trying to convert FG into a really good R/C sim (i.e. you'd need to write a new FDM and a new renderer) would outweight any advantages.

The two other existing open-source (also cross-platform) projects that could be used as a starting point are crrcsim and SSS. I (as the author of SSS) wouldn't use either of them - here's why:

1. crrcsim - its FDM shares the problems (and benefits) of FGFS. The code is entirely based around it being a glider simulator which (in my opinion) makes it had to extend and be useful as a general R/C simulator. The rendering is primitive.

2. SSS - its FDM is based on an element/component model, and as such is appropriate for full R/C type flight (even though some aspects could/should be improved). However, the rigid-body physics part isn't so great (uses a penalty method for collisions), and neither is the rendering. There's a lot in SSS that I would use in a new system... though all of it needs rewriting!

This is what I would do:

1. Use a separate physics engine to handle the low level rigid-body physics. When I "finish" my rigid body physics engine (JigLib) I'll do this in fact... anyone else could use ODE (or finish JigLib) if they want a free, open-source, cross-platform engine, or else Newton/TrueAxis/Novodex etc if they're less interested in the open-source/cross-platform aspect.

2. Write an element-based FDM from scratch - elements include not only aerofoils but also props, jets, landing gear etc.

3. Write a wind-field system from scratch (based on SSS code?) - including thermals

4. Use an existing, free, render engine - e.g. Ogre (open-source, cross-platform)

5. Use an existing, free sound library (OpenAL) - though fmod is the bees knees if you're not worried about open-source.

6. investigate input methods/libraries - tricky if they're cross platform

7. use XML (and an existing XML parser) for as much configuration as possible.

8. Bear in mind networking and various other things right from the start - very hard to hack into an existing system.

9. Think right from the outset about what tools/file formats are going to be useful for encouraging a "community" to generate the assets (scenery, models etc).

[othmanskn]

I disagree with this statement a lot. In fact, the three FDMs in FGFS are pretty inappropriate for a R/C simulator because (from the information I just looked at) they're designed for normal flight. R/C fixed wing fliying, on the other hand, generally involves a lot more stalling/high-alpha flight, and 3D flying involves handling interactions between different components (e.g. prop-wash going over control surfaces).


FG is capable of handling many FDM. Right now it shows 10.
You can add your FDM into FG if you want to. Or even Reflex FDM.


I would also say that the graphics in FGFS are nothing to get excited about either. So all in all I think the pain of trying to convert FG into a really good R/C sim (i.e. you'd need to write a new FDM and a new renderer) would outweight any advantages.


There is no need to rewrite any new FDM for FG.
You can adapt existing ones into it.

The two other existing open-source (also cross-platform) projects that could be used as a starting point are crrcsim and SSS. I (as the author of SSS) wouldn't use either of them - here's why:

1. crrcsim - its FDM shares the problems (and benefits) of FGFS. The code is entirely based around it being a glider simulator which (in my opinion) makes it had to extend and be useful as a general R/C simulator. The rendering is primitive.

2. SSS - its FDM is based on an element/component model, and as such is appropriate for full R/C type flight (even though some aspects could/should be improved). However, the rigid-body physics part isn't so great (uses a penalty method for collisions), and neither is the rendering. There's a lot in SSS that I would use in a new system... though all of it needs rewriting!

This is what I would do:

1. Use a separate physics engine to handle the low level rigid-body physics. When I "finish" my rigid body physics engine (JigLib) I'll do this in fact... anyone else could use ODE (or finish JigLib) if they want a free, open-source, cross-platform engine, or else Newton/TrueAxis/Novodex etc if they're less interested in the open-source/cross-platform aspect.


Why don't you adapt it for FG or run it independently as what
jsbsim organisation is doing.

You can have the best of both worlds. You can use it for FSIM but later on to dedicated RC Sim.

2. Write an element-based FDM from scratch - elements include not only aerofoils but also props, jets, landing gear etc.

3. Write a wind-field system from scratch (based on SSS code?) - including thermals



You can write them separtely or combine them, but FG can be used to display them.

4. Use an existing, free, render engine - e.g. Ogre (open-source, cross-platform)


I believe FG uses PLIB but why don't you contribute by making FG accept both as options? Using its modular FDM options as a basis?

Of course it is big, but it is not meant for the current PC. Even now, I don't have much problem with hard disk space because it is so cheap now.

The only problem is in running and loading but making a program modular does not make its running or initialising much slower than dedicated non-modular systems. So we choose the best FDM or Rendering that match a particular problem the best, while we are developing and experimenting with various theories as to the best FDM and rederer matches at a particular moment.

That is the power of FG. The ability to try many different combinations and theories.

Some may work, but some may fail but there is little unnecessary work in the various compoents. It may be good in FDM but poor in rendering or vice versa, but having a modular system reduces the manhour lost.


5. Use an existing, free sound library (OpenAL) - though fmod is the bees knees if you're not worried about open-source.

6. investigate input methods/libraries - tricky if they're cross platform

7. use XML (and an existing XML parser) for as much configuration as possible.


Already being done in FG. Why do you need to reinvent the wheel? Why not just contribute to the experiences gained in FG?

8. Bear in mind networking and various other things right from the start - very hard to hack into an existing system.

9. Think right from the outset about what tools/file formats are going to be useful for encouraging a "community" to generate the assets (scenery, models etc).
Already done in FG but limited to Flight Sim sceneries and database but this can be the basis for RC Sim.

RC Sim allows us to be more detailed in a small geographical area but we can still use the data to calibrate and make our local data even more accurate and easy to develop.

At the moment, panoramic pictures are beautiful but it still requirs 3D objects to make it more real, especially those hills and rivers, that are already in FG scenery database.

I've got a feeling you've not done a detailed study of the latest developments in FG before making this comment.

[Mr Rowl]

I've got a feeling you've not done a detailed study of the latest developments in FG before making this comment.

You're right - I made the mistake of believing the documentation (which claims 3 existing FDMs to choose from).

However, I get the feeling you're not a programmer/developer. If somebody is going to come up with a free, open-source, cross-platform R/C simulator you have to wonder why they would do it. One of the main reasons is because they want to make something that's "theirs" - since modifying FGFS to be a really top-notch R/C sim would involve spending a lot of time working out how _other_ people's code works in order to rewrite/replace it (being careful not to break anything for any other FGFS dev), it honestly wouldn't be that much fun... and at the end of the day you wouldn't have made anything that you could really call your own.

You may call writing everything (or at least, a lot) from scratch "reinventing the wheel", but if it's fun and educational then why not?! Not only does this fun/educational aspect increase motivation, but the fact that you don't have to worry about breaking other people's stuff increases productivity _enormously_.

This is also the reason why I expect that if another free/open-source R/C flight pops up it will in fact be written by a single guy (all meanings of the phrase "single guy"!) - because it's quicker that way and the motivation is there.

This is just my opinion as someone who is actually reasonably likely to write such a sim. Also note that the list I made was headed "this is what I would do". Obviously I can't speak for other people, who are motivated in different ways. I see lots of projects (in no particular order FMS, Clearview, probably Reflex, SSS, the original crrcsim, Newton, the initial ODE, Tokamak etc and stuff I see at work etc) that get to 99% of where they want to go under the control/enthusiasm of one person. Then at that time you can grab/encourage a couple of extra people to do the last few boring bits!

I don't mean to discourage you (or anyone) from playing/tinkering with FGFS - if it's fun that's great and if you get somewhere that's even better. However, it is my opinion that it would need a lot of programming work to get it above the other existing free/cheap R/C sims - if you're not that programmer you have to think about why a programmer would do that work for free.

[Mr Rowl]

Actually, my opinion is that one of the most interesting ways of getting a new simulator going would be to write a mod for an existing game - for example Far Cry (OK... I work for Crytek who made this game but that's just coincidence!). It should be possible to do for any game where the game source-code SDK has been released (e.g. Far Cry since it has a lot of suitable "outdoor" assets) - it would be "just" a matter of writing the FDM and wind-field code, and writing some "game-rule" code to make it run. Of course, it would require any user to buy a copy of the original game, but that's not much money.

[othmanskn]

You're right - I made the mistake of believing the documentation (which claims 3 existing FDMs to choose from).


Probably out of date. FG is voluntary work and for fun only. Many other choices are just for fun also. Only 3 are more seriously useable.


However, I get the feeling you're not a programmer/developer. If somebody is going to come up with a free, open-source, cross-platform R/C simulator you have to wonder why they would do it. One of the main reasons is because they want to make something that's "theirs" - since modifying FGFS to be a really top-notch R/C sim would involve spending a lot of time working out how _other_ people's code works in order to rewrite/replace it (being careful not to break anything for any other FGFS dev), it honestly wouldn't be that much fun... and at the end of the day you wouldn't have made anything that you could really call your own.



Right. I'm just a user who likes to modify sources to fit my needs, but I do notice that people who develop on the works of others are much richer and surely having fun as well, people like Bill Gates, and even Yahoo(BSD) and Google( Not sure which database but they gave a large donation to an open source foundation).

Even closed systems such as Apple bow to pressures and adopt Unix as its platform. Even in its earliest days, Apple II success was due to the adoption of CPM, an open specification OS that allowed others to write software for them. It is even well documented. Of course it started with the open IBM bios, well documented ways of using them. Not to mention the standard microprocessors and parts that it used.

The lesson is, if you want to be widely acknowledged and gain from it, you must allow other people to easily use your creation through documentations, or use the work of others in order to advance your creativity.



You may call writing everything (or at least, a lot) from scratch "reinventing the wheel", but if it's fun and educational then why not?! Not only does this fun/educational aspect increase motivation, but the fact that you don't have to worry about breaking other people's stuff increases productivity _enormously_.

I notice that. In my industry, the Telecommunication industry, we all go for standards. It is suicidal to invent your own standard preemptively. You cannot communicate.

This is also the reason why I expect that if another free/open-source R/C flight pops up it will in fact be written by a single guy (all meanings of the phrase "single guy"!) - because it's quicker that way and the motivation is there.


I notice that but they die off quickly. Even FG is driven by Olson, just as Linux is driven by Linus.

This is just my opinion as someone who is actually reasonably likely to write such a sim. Also note that the list I made was headed "this is what I would do". Obviously I can't speak for other people, who are motivated in different ways. I see lots of projects (in no particular order FMS, Clearview, probably Reflex, SSS, the original crrcsim, Newton, the initial ODE, Tokamak etc and stuff I see at work etc) that get to 99% of where they want to go under the control/enthusiasm of one person. Then at that time you can grab/encourage a couple of extra people to do the last few boring bits!


If you study the code for Clearview, it depends a lot on standard libraries and sources. It wont make it withinn 2 years if it were written from scratch all the way, but Clearview is more of a marketing idea than a technological idea but it is alright becuase it allows people like myself our first taste of Photo scheneries, and 3D flying.

Now I'm addictied but I'd like that REflex if sufficiently developed but AFPD is better for my needs now, if I can get hold of it conveniently.


I don't mean to discourage you (or anyone) from playing/tinkering with FGFS - if it's fun that's great and if you get somewhere that's even better. However, it is my opinion that it would need a lot of programming work to get it above the other existing free/cheap R/C sims - if you're not that programmer you have to think about why a programmer would do that work for free.

That is a challenge that I'm trying to prove wrong. In fact I intend to do it for MS FSIM but MS is expensive and its sources are not freely available so its development will stop as determined by business needs.

FG has gone one step further in allowing other FDM to integrate into its structure.

I believe I can model parameters that match RC models provided the FDM allows it. MS parameters are not designed to be too realistic but there is no such qualm in FG.

It makes FG not commercially viable because it is too expensive to develop models and takes too much hardware resources, but developments in hardware makes that immaterial.

MS is forced to lanch the latest version of MS FSIM 2004(?)

My advise to all developers of software is:
i) use other people's work if possible and available or affordable
ii) make sure you can allow other people to use your software by writing sceneries or models, or addons etc.
iii) make sure users are allowed to tinker with some parameters, the more tha better. Users are willing to work with imperfect and buggy software as long as they can tinker with them, e.g. DOS vs Mac.

You may think that Unix is better than DOS in this respect but no. So damned difficult to install new drivers.

[othmanskn]

Completed the transfer of Clearview F16 to FG including textures.

I had to convert the texture into Silicon Grahics .rgb using Gimp. The use of Imagemagick as suggested by the debugin screen was a failure.

Even gim does not recognise .rgb, must resort to selecting Silicon graphics type. I got this idea from File Extension website.

I had to take out many other objects from the original F16 image, fuel tanks, engines, gears etc. I tried by using AC3D kids paramater, setting it to zero, but failed. Need to delete all object entries.

I also attempted to modify JSBSim parameters by dividing by 10, 100 or 1000 depending on dimensions. This is not the correct scale but too lazy to change.

The plane started in the sky somewhere, and it flew but control was so sluggish. It flew inveted but stable cannot manage to put it upright.

I divide the thrust by 1000, mass and weights by 1000 also. Area by 100.

This jsb sims have too many parameters. Since I do not have any F16 model plane to play with, I will not proceed to tweak these parameters.

I'm more interested in Russian planes such as Su-32.

If we are successful, we can fly our RC planes with HUD indicators.

I didn't disable them. We can even use the ATC and autopilot to fly from one place to another. Just imagine, using our RC planes to travel around the world.

I shall proceed to YASIM models that should be easier because it is finite element modelling.

Maybe I should thr fly the concorde first.

[Zaragon]

I take it that you have the permission of the F16 author/designer to undertake the use of their copyrite material in this way. Otherwise, especially by publically admitting it, you have left yourself open to legal action.

[treehog]

@ othmanskn
If we are successful, we can fly our RC planes with HUD indicators.

The sims open up all sorts of extra unlimited possibilties
including
1/fake worlds like mars
2/or new to be found planets
3/or jump jets
4/re-anactments of hypersonic model plane at mack 10
5/multi screen views to simulate wrap around copits widows

6/With possibilties to measure parameters not realy possible in real world such as temperatures or turbulace around airscoops etc

but for now a example some simple 1/3 semi scale cessna high wing trainer would be sufficient for a start before we get into mack 2 plus

@Zaragon

take it that you have the permission of the F16 author/designer to undertake the use of their copyrite material

Its always a problem to stay inside the exact legalalities but for our low like zero dollar budget for playing with thier code for short durations until we can make a relevant replacement
and as we cant police what others do its best if somebody who does do copying to admit it to us
so we can know that information cannot be copied by us
or included in this type of open source project
accept to vaugly admit its relevance as a method to test out a possible solutiions
where parties choose to admit these in-descretions

So othmanskn is skating on thin ice if the copywright brigade decide to pursue him
but I suspect the risk is not big
as he only says he did it
but I havent seen any real life demo????
and for all we know he is fibbing

and wiping out the comment wont work as there is always a copy out there somewhere
so I suspect he can still sleep easy

So for others out there doing a bit of copying bear in mind
these facts in the descussion
that other parties might want to sue us for copying thier stuff
so we cant include it in open source projects
and even the gains obtained from copying can stir up a legal mess
if the open source projects were to become popular
so a little real time original work is the best solution
as the final spoken result givin to the thread
and we wont ask how you figured it out if you dont chose to say how

Also we need to check for relevant permissions for to change modify or use open source such as flight gear as not all open source allows you to do absolutly anything you wish to but most do allow anthing so its worth checking out the type of copywrights for each outside open source elements

So if some legal types see a possible infringment or can say in simple english thing like you can do anything you like with product open source flight gear for example let us know in your honest opinion that can help too

Some people want to go very graphics so if they want to group up set up a seperate thread " graphics for open source simulation project " and when they hammered out the details got code going send it back to the main link it could help to save this link becoming a graphics only thread and similar solution when some feature requires a grouping such as weather simulation or aerodynamics simulation.....etc

So lets go wing it and see where this sims project can go to

Ralf

[othmanskn]

I take it that you have the permission of the F16 author/designer to undertake the use of their copyrite material in this way. Otherwise, especially by publically admitting it, you have left yourself open to legal action.

Since it is not for commercial use and it is not for my personal use, I should be safe.

If anyone thinks that I have infringed on their legal right, they are free to give me a warning.

By making the intentions public, I'm just trying to be honest.

Althought Clearview is a commercial product, the F16 model appears similar to the FMS models. You can find so many of such conveted models at Ken's website and he is not related to Clearview.

Although we need to use Clearview to convert FMS models to AC3D but the ones at Ken's website should be free for personal use.

The copyright laws in Malaysia is different from USA. They have to try me in Malaysia in order to convict me.

It is risky to use a copyrighted material even those that can still be challenged but life must go on by taking some calculated risk. To be perfectly sure, we can use Flightgear's or MS Flight Sim models and scale them down to RC sizes.

Better still, I can redraw based on public domain plans by converting 2D data into slices of 3D data. In fact, I shall try that technique one of these days.

[othmanskn]

Flightgear already has a propellor R/C model in the RASCAL 110.

It is designed as a UAV with a camera under its belly.

YASIM does not extract dimensions automatically but will calibrate its airflow models with the provided approach and cruise speeds at whatever throttle setting these are.

For 3D planes we can set the cruise and approach throttle setting to 50% for example so that we can utilise the extra power for other uses.

I have not managed to get any YASIm model modifications because it failed to converge.

With this RASCAL, direct form Olson's work, the leader of this FG project, I should be able to provide interesting RC models for FG from the Public domain i.e. FMS and others.

What I need will be data on their flight characteristics which I can get from FMS etc.






<!-- 12 lb aircraft weight includes engine, but not fuel (empty weight) -->
<airplane mass="12">

<!-- Approach configuration -->
<approach speed="15" aoa="4">
<control-setting axis="/controls/engines/engine[0]/throttle" value="0.10"/>
</approach>

<!-- Cruise configuration -->
<cruise speed="65" alt="1000">
<control-setting axis="/controls/engines/engine[0]/throttle" value="1.00"/>
<control-setting axis="/controls/engines/engine[0]/mixture" value="1.00"/>
<control-setting axis="/controls/flight/elevator-trim" value="0.4"/>
</cruise>

<!-- pilot's eyepoint -->
<cockpit x="-0.48" y="0" z="0.30"/>

<fuselage ax="0.00" ay="0.00" az="-0.05" bx="-1.93" by="0.00" bz="-0.05"
width="0.30" taper="0.47" midpoint="0.58"/>

[treehog]

@ othmanskn
Flightgear already has a propellor R/C model in the RASCAL 110.


Excellent info will use friends computer and learn its features

I am going to make a new link


"Users reports Flightgear propellor R/C model in the RASCAL 110. "


http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=505847#post5339856

then if the future we make other versions such as our own or others we can make seperate user links for those and and link them to this sticky


also on copyright issues links
of interest for all concerned

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=494709

as sooner or later some or all of us might acccidently copy or include copywrite stuff so we need to careful what we use for source codes in case it is already copywritted

If we ever include any copywrited code we risk problems court orders banning us from passsing on the program to other users so when we make new code we need to get it copywritted in the copy lefted org . or similar to protect it from being copywritted by the big outfits
yeah dig that we write the code they copy right it and we cant use our own code
now not to open a debate here on this type of important issues I have a new link for these issues

"How not to fall foul of copyright issues in using UAV code"

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=505849

Ralf

[othmanskn]

Good advise. At the moment my disclaimer does not include any copyright notice. I contribute lots of information and ideas but forgot to copyright them for personal uses. I only copyright some photos and programs because there are available good copyright statements.

For normal posts, we dont' have any yet.

[othmanskn]

successful in creating a 3 pound J3 piper using rascal 110 yasim parameters, with no change in dimensions.

Flight character istics is strange with little control responsiveness but able to climb vertical ly without stalling due to the high power to weight ratio.

Need to compare with known planes, starting with spitfire.

[treehog]

Had a good summer and holiday in spain

viva espana

hot girls

anyway my latest project is to make a surface vehicile in a flight simulator using prefereably open software

www.ysflight.com

so YSFLIGHT seems to fit the bill best

this program will allow acces to source code in the RC jet flight simulator part

keep you posted

Ralf

[Unterhausen]

one of the flightgear guys is active here in the UAV section of the forum, clolsen

There is a linux r/c flight sim called crrc sim

[treehog]

FLIGHT GEAR DOSNT WANT TO WORK FOR ME (AUGUST new solutions since then )



Special edit 17th nov info below is interesting to follow also


http://www.simgear.org/
this is a serious simulator tool kit add on for the flight gear which probably can accommadate surface use

also good thread for surface AGV (Automatic ground vehicles ) pre UAV system at http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=596120
and flight gear build thread

http://www.flightgear.org/~curt/Mod...al/Rascal110_1/
http://www.flightgear.org/~curt/Mod...al/Rascal110_2/

this system with simgear probably would allow a way to not have to bother to use a CAD program such as blender and speed things up a lot for a lot of others
(info tends to be very linux supported presently)


Special EDIT 12TH NOV 2006
Blender will do export import of most all types of files so this will speed thing up a lot as I dont need to make this API

Aso met a Italian guy who used CAD for airbus in CAD CAM and his company used Rhino to fix thier buggy CAD so recones Rhino is the best affordable CAD and he will send elements of the project to his friends in the airbus dezine section in Italy to see what they can do to help
hope that comes back with usefull results

Having problems to find suitable open source electronic programs that can do electronic simulationns especialy for electric battery motors combos

Now dont say motor calc or e calc as that is not open source and my buget restraints dont reach to these costs as my calculator gives me adaqate results or free online dymond site (again not open source )
figure going to have to hang outin german forums to get good frre open source electronic simulators eeekkkk babalel fish time again
lucky i can mostly hack the french stuff direct

if you have ideas on electrionic simulators or similar PM is best and then after I sifted them through can tack them to this semi sticky (new term semi glue thread ) so its tack them onto this glue thread and semi glue as sticky is more for forum controller



Special EDIT 16th OCT
futher down will probably change over only to flight gear
end edit


Special EDIT 18th OCT
found this train simulator might be interesting to check what uses it has
trains are definitly not my trip
http://forums.auran.com/trainz/forum/index.php

MICROSOFT have a lot of useful products off the shelf such as flight simulator design program that make planes and senery airports etc so others who prefer to spend the money and fingd other game simulator engine s and advance more quickly could opt to take that route


I am using a compaq nx61100 HP laptop 15 inch 6 month old with xp 1.73ghz and pentium 500ram and dual boot linux Umbantu
As I dont want to get involved with complex flight simulator issues but the run of the mill simple flights and not to be dragging around a joy stick I need to use keyboard options

keyboard options dont work properly or at all often motor wont start and often planes bang of ground and fly in a sideways fashion


The YSFLIGHT works great

I decided in order to learn this tecknonogy best to do a ground operated sim first

so I opened another thread for that type of sim in robotics

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=577677

I am looking at myby using FSFLIGHT or player with linux

this will mean I wont be activly pursing this thread just right now until i get more experience in simulators generaly first with a ground operted type

for others who want to contribut feel free to join in with any ideas or new threads so as to save this thread gumming up with chit chat

I will check out the other FS with linux
this link shows that link charles river and others
http://www.astro.ku.dk/~norup/vertigo/fly_links.html
and a photo from that free simulator of ccrm
looks realy good

Ralf spending a lot of time of 2006 over at robots forum

Special EDIT 16th OCT

in case any persons have forgotten the main target issue the purpose is to eventaly build real uav
but to make mock versions in computers first for testing them out
computer crashes are cheaper
(initialy I will try to make surface devices later avation )
one micro step at a time

I suspect to solve that problem will require the merging of sevaral open or non open source programs
all my preferences are for open source
(but due to my lesser linux mac abilties will probably stay with MS XP and after everthing works convert it to work on linux mac )
www.blender.org has as far as I can see the best CAD for open source access
www.flight gear has the best for open source access but the ccrm is a very intresting possibilty that might usurp flight gear
(ysflight has some source not accessable )
On that basis I will concentrate on merging these two into a more useful program for cad cam purposes
if somebody wants to try or join in feel free even if its with other programs

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=577677


Special edit 30th oct

Been ploughing through thousands of web pages for CAD and simulators and openGL

some main pointers
connecting different programms with API is not easy but best to say all API are realy just DLL (dynamicaly linked libabaries)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COLLADA is a good place to start to understand the consepts for COLLADA

and then go to http://www.COLLADA.org

from this it can be seen that a possible solution standard might arise to make life mch easier for stinging together many different programs to do one task

as in electronic simulator exports pcb board dezin into CAD made UAV which exports into Simulator which exports to CAM...whatever

The electronic simulator programs are a serious problem to get stuck into as most seem to want money for the good bits of the program working on this

Most every simulator product out there except mayby MS uses openGL

The site http://nehe.gamedev.net has tution on how to learn and make 3d objects in openGL

( this will require that for MS you have a suitable studio works product
GOD I SO LOVE THE MAC XCODE compared to MS and studio works free bee productds like c6 that can be fun to learn compared to xcode

I dont think you need to be gee whiz open gl programer to get on top of this so really a basic set it up with a geek freinds if nessary and do the opengl lessons mayby 6 plus of them so that when a API is developed you can be on the know roughly what it does as openGL is kinda like the metal chassis of the simulation world boring boring but nessary to kinda know a bit about it so you can plug on parts that you want
there are lots of how to run opengl studio works MS c6 and c++ help forums out there who should be able to guide the unitiated how to get that going


The policy trend for this thread if i can succeed will be to take programs that work and sting them together to do the job and so i need to find or deveolp the API application program interface to get it all to work

I know in my dreams but why not try if I have to tweak flight gear or blender a bit well I will jump that bridge when I get to it )

from that I hope to be able to expand and understand how every body else makes thier stuff and have an idea how to make API for 3d stuff

I am generaly going to try to progress using MS XP type direction cause I am too lazy to fight that issue and it came with my compaq nx6110 laptop but if nessary I have umbantu LINUX loaded on HD as well

Also MS simulator has a FSDS program that you can buy and you can make your own planes and airports senery etc so if you want to try that varation out could speed up development in another direction
me I am too tight to spend the money on MS simulator period need the money for models :D


CAD is another problem .as there are so many. best candidates are Blender which is free www.blender.org and has a game phyfics part also so could do UAV simulations straight off except to make a GPS and HUD might be tricky not sure


Maya which costs a lot to buy but you can use free trial verion with water mark havent tried but not open source

Flightgear stills comes out tops for free open source but there are issues which might be important

The method of simulation is different than most phyfics engines which might or might not be superior to other flight sims such as xplane clearview etc


My guess is my direction becuase it is cheaper is to use blender CAD and flightgear and make a suitable API and finally I figure its now more do able for average joes to do with a few pointers
EDIT 12th nov 2006 Blender has API to export import to most types of files out there inbuilt to program so dont need to make API

If others want to try out similar like this or others like xplane or MS solutions drop a link

some links
white paper seems to the main way to find API

http://ludocraft.oulu.fi/elias/dokumentit/open_source_game_engines.pdf
and python seems to be the most popular way for 3d to do API
(python is free )

http://members.iinet.net.au/~cpbarton/ideasman/BPY_API/index.html


I included this maya white paper on maya API as its well presented and other CAD will probably be similar
http://members.iinet.net.au/~cpbarton/ideasman/BPY_API/index.html



Ralf

[treehog]

I looked and saw nearly 2000 views of the thread so figured time to bump it forward
all updates on previous post 29 which looks to becoming a main sub sticky until I get my first API blender to flight gear working

Also saw google the top ten books down loads the titlle all terrain robot was in the top ten so robotics projects seem to popular to monitor or partake of and simulator might make it more affordardable

Ralf