-
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleicher_ASK_13): The ASK 13 is a two-seater glider that was built by Alexander Schleicher. It was and still is widely used for ab-initio training of glider pilots.
In collaboration with Flight Gear (http://www.flightgear.org/), and with permission from bomber (Simon Morley) (http://forum.outerra.com/index.php?action=profile;u=114188), I'm porting this beautiful glider into Outerra Anteworld.
bomber (Simon Morley) (http://forum.outerra.com/index.php?action=profile;u=114188) is responsible for doing the flight dynamics, and Me (http://forum.outerra.com/index.php?action=profile;u=95893) the rest.
Download (http://www.mediafire.com/download/3hhb3at985mnoak/ASK-13.Levi.otx)
(March 28, 2015)
Update:
(March 28, 2015)
- Added lights (gauges, cockpit, strobe). As usual, using the control panel at the top of the script, you can turn on and off these group of lights.
- Added various cameras (pilot, copilot, tail tip, left wing and right wing). Use 'V' key.
Screenshots here (http://imgur.com/a/XT0hD)
Update:
(September 16, 2014)
Update:
(August 30, 2014)
Released on August 27, 2014
Features:- Basic Wing Flex (upgrade pending).
- Two different camera positions (using Mixture).
- Animated ailerons.
- Animated air brakes (using throttle).
- Animated rudder.
- Animated elevator & elevator trim.
- Animated rudder pedals (front & rear).
- Animated air brakes handles.
- Animated elevator trim handles.
- Animated yokes (front & rear).
- Animated canopy (using gear key).
- Sounds for:
- General wind.
- Air brakes wind.
- Roll.
- Creak % Vario beep based on AoA.
- Working instruments/gauges:
- Turn indicator (front & rear).
- Air speed indicator (front & rear).
- Vertical speed indicator (front & rear).
- Compass (front & rear).
- Altimeter (front & rear).
Release Video:
Outerra Anteworld - [Release] Schleicher ASK-13 (glider) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HaeWQPg40w#ws)
Screenshots
(http://i.imgur.com/6Rza88l.jpg)(http://i.imgur.com/psiPwCK.jpg)(http://i.imgur.com/VNNgSDj.jpg)(http://i.imgur.com/Z7IZD98.jpg)(http://i.imgur.com/1czGCgl.jpg)(http://i.imgur.com/YkYNCcJ.jpg)(http://i.imgur.com/n4GW7Vr.jpg)(http://i.imgur.com/UVYTwDO.jpg)(http://i.imgur.com/R61U5Fk.jpg)(http://i.imgur.com/FQ7BcGr.jpg)
Gallery here (http://imgur.com/a/wXwLA).
-
Cooool. Can we launch this from the bottom of the Airbus yet?
-
I'm more interested in when we might start to see Outerra wind, thermals, and etc. ;D
(Mandatory for a glider)
-
Levi, try this
http://target4today.com/_posted_images_/2014-08/ask-13.zip (http://target4today.com/_posted_images_/2014-08/ask-13.zip)
-
Looking good!
-
Levi, if you split the right and left wings into 8 sections each, we can work on the wingflex code in the fdm and animation files.
-
Youre splitted them ? ... i thought that was made by an armature based deformation ...
-
Levi, try this
http://target4today.com/_posted_images_/2014-08/ask-13.zip (http://target4today.com/_posted_images_/2014-08/ask-13.zip)
Thanks! That's another story now :D Working perfectly ;)
Btw, I think the dummy-engine can be reduced to this:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<piston_engine name="dummy-engine">
</piston_engine>
It tested that, and all works fine. What do you think about it? :D
-
Levi, if you split the right and left wings into 8 sections each, we can work on the wingflex code in the fdm and animation files.
Right! I completely forgot about that ;D I'll try and see what can be done. I guess the ailerons will complicate the things a little...
But... 8 sections each? isn't that a bit too much? The wings on the A-380 are splitted in four sections each, and only three (the fourth one is connected to the fuselage) are rotating...
Youre splitted them ? ... i thought that was made by an armature based deformation ...
Yeah, on the A-380 the wings are splitted, but the rotations are based on two pivot points (one at the top, and one at the bottom of each section). This way, it's harder to notice the seams in between ;D
With armature based deformation, things would have been much easier and better looking...
-
Cooool. Can we launch this from the bottom of the Airbus yet?
That's a pretty nice idea! It would have been so cool if we could do that :)
I'm more interested in when we might start to see Outerra wind, thermals, and etc. ;D
(Mandatory for a glider)
+1
-
The wing is already split up into 8 sections in the fdm, so thought it'd be a good experiment to match this.
-
The wing is already split up into 8 sections in the fdm, so thought it'd be a good experiment to match this.
Alright then, I think I can do it :)
Are those the 8 sections we're talking about? Because only 7 will be movable ...
(http://i.minus.com/ib2tUFELMrcBTz.png)
Or something like this? Eight sections movable now. The red one is static.
(http://i.minus.com/iomLB4EZAqf0L.png)
-
Go for the second one, don't you think.
-
Go for the second one, don't you think.
Perfect! I'm gonna do it ;D
-
Didn't mention any blending problems at my play at the airbus (but i kinda worry, it might make some weird lightning or shadow blimps at cross-sections when close up or whyte reflections from the wing-surface at that place) - yes, animated stuff would be great, but true, that even i haven't got a handle of it yet - guess we will wait till OT gets a step more to completion (and the documentation) to play things that way.
-
Yep, there's a good chance that close up it's noticeable, infact I'd hope it is.
But it begs a question,.... 'when is good enough, good enough ?'
In a 3d environment we can zillion in real close to out object, and if the object needs to be looked at real close then it should be detailed enough to cope... But what distance should a plane be viewed at ?
I've hand a rule for years now that if a plane looks ok from the distance of a wingspan away, it's good enough, because I'll be sat in my cockpit looking at it from that distance and no nearer.
Simon.
-
Well we already have a bird-creature that flaps its wings very energetically, and I can't remember any show-stopping graphical anomalies.......
-
Having done some quick research it seems overall wingflex based on distance up n down is anywhere between 8° and 14°..... if we rotate each section 1° we should cover this and not be noticeable.
-
Having done some quick research it seems overall wingflex based on distance up n down is anywhere between 8° and 14°..... if we rotate each section 1° we should cover this and not be noticeable.
Well....... Just be careful...... ;D
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AubKzvGI2g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AubKzvGI2g#ws)
-
Well....... Just be careful...... ;D
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AubKzvGI2g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AubKzvGI2g#ws)
lol, I've archived the same effect while doing the wingflex on the A-380. It was kinda funny :D
-
Yep, there's a good chance that close up it's noticeable, infact I'd hope it is.
But it begs a question,.... 'when is good enough, good enough ?'
In a 3d environment we can zillion in real close to out object, and if the object needs to be looked at real close then it should be detailed enough to cope... But what distance should a plane be viewed at ?
I've hand a rule for years now that if a plane looks ok from the distance of a wingspan away, it's good enough, because I'll be sat in my cockpit looking at it from that distance and no nearer.
Simon.
... is true story ... i just hope it wont be visible in bombers from gunner-positions and at wing-tip cameras. When its not, than this way is no bad at all to the future too ...
P.S. : ... when planes become birds and flap their wings .. ;D
-
Having done some quick research it seems overall wingflex based on distance up n down is anywhere between 8° and 14°..... if we rotate each section 1° we should cover this and not be noticeable.
Well....... Just be careful...... ;D
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AubKzvGI2g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AubKzvGI2g#ws)
That's one way to save the environment ;D
-
P.S. : ... when planes become birds and flap their wings .. ;D
Just like this, isn't it? ;D ;D
Outerra Anteworld - [WIP] Schleicher ASK-13 (exagerated WingFlex test) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98uNo0AdhI0#ws)
-
Actually on that plane it looks kind of cool!
Also, this video is unlisted. Is it alright to share?
-
Actually on that plane it looks kind of cool!
Also, this video is unlisted. Is it alright to share?
Oh, I forgot to make it public :D
Of course you can share it, go ahead :) and thank you :)
-
Actually on that plane it looks kind of cool!
Also, this video is unlisted. Is it alright to share?
Oh, I forgot to make it public :D
Of course you can share it, go ahead :) and thank you :)
Thanx!
-
| (http://i.imgur.com/mUthMCs.jpg) | (http://www.muscleandstrength.com/sites/default/files/images/articles/articles/flex.jpg) |
-
| (http://i.imgur.com/mUthMCs.jpg) | (http://www.muscleandstrength.com/sites/default/files/images/articles/articles/flex.jpg) |
;D ;D ;D
-
| (http://i.imgur.com/mUthMCs.jpg) | (http://www.muscleandstrength.com/sites/default/files/images/articles/articles/flex.jpg) |
lol that made me laugh! ;D
-
That's a great start Levi, the animation looks to be run off the AoA of the wing at present, we can change that to a property specific to the force generated by the individual section of the wing.. This would be as realistic as we could get I reckon. I'm working on the data needed for the Ilyushin Il-14 flight model at present, I could drop off that and work for a week on the wingflex code needed in the flight model... it's your call I'm easy whichever way.
Now let's talk animation..
You notice before the wing was broken up into sections that the smoothing was a uniformly long run, but now that the wings broken up the smoothing only goes as far as the end of the sections, that's because the 'end points' used here are fixed in space with no smoothing applied whereas the 'intermediate points' have smoothing applied... So we need to make the 'end points' of each section 'intermediate points'
Now it's going to look odd in blender but here's the trick...
For the section of the wing you're dealing with include the sections to the right and left of it and weld up the points as before... now the points on the section we're dealing with are 'intermediate points' not 'end points'.... but there's a problem the section is too long and won't work when flexing.... and that's because the outer sections are VISIBLE..... and we don't want that. So using the smallest possible alpha texture apply this to these sections...
When rendered ingame these outer section wont appear but the section of wing we do see has 'intermediate points' and not end points and thus smoothing is still applied...
Apply this trick to all sections and the wing should look as before it was broken up, nice and uniformly smoothed....
Have fun.. :)
Simon
-
That's a great start Levi, the animation looks to be run off the AoA of the wing at present, we can change that to a property specific to the force generated by the individual section of the wing.. This would be as realistic as we could get I reckon. I'm working on the data needed for the Ilyushin Il-14 flight model at present, I could drop off that and work for a week on the wingflex code needed in the flight model... it's your call I'm easy whichever way.
Yes, the animations are basically based on AoA, but let's make it as realistic as we can.
Nice to hear you're working on Ilyushin Il-14's flight model, but first let's finish this little bird :)
Now let's talk animation..
You notice before the wing was broken up into sections that the smoothing was a uniformly long run, but now that the wings broken up the smoothing only goes as far as the end of the sections, that's because the 'end points' used here are fixed in space with no smoothing applied whereas the 'intermediate points' have smoothing applied... So we need to make the 'end points' of each section 'intermediate points'
Are you referring to this?
You can clearly see the seam left after the wing was broken up into sections:
(http://i.minus.com/i8e4ElupL7vlR.png)
For that, I have a simple solution. I call it 'Custom Normals', and it's done by editing vertex normals (I'm using Autodesk 3ds Max 2015):
(http://i.minus.com/iIIrLn2s09WIX.png)
...now the smoothing looks just like before splitting, and you will always still keeping the sections as separate objects:
(http://i.minus.com/iLuZoEHOSnbi3.png)
Now it's going to look odd in blender but here's the trick...
For the section of the wing you're dealing with include the sections to the right and left of it and weld up the points as before... now the points on the section we're dealing with are 'intermediate points' not 'end points'.... but there's a problem the section is too long and won't work when flexing.... and that's because the outer sections are VISIBLE..... and we don't want that. So using the smallest possible alpha texture apply this to these sections...
When rendered ingame these outer section wont appear but the section of wing we do see has 'intermediate points' and not end points and thus smoothing is still applied...
Apply this trick to all sections and the wing should look as before it was broken up, nice and uniformly smoothed....
Have fun.. :)
Simon
I'm not sure if I completely understood this trick. Some illustrations/examples would really help. I'm really curious how your trick would work :)
But as I explained before, even if the wings are broken up, the smoothing will remain as before using that technique of Custom Normals.
I made the outer sections visible just to not be able to see through the wings when the sections are separating while flexing.
(http://i.minus.com/i3lZNDmvDZrJA.png)
Now, for better results, and to not easily notice the seam because of the outer sections, I use the same technique of Custom Normals.
This is how it looks like before the technique is applied to the outer section(the wing is flexed down only from the first section):
(http://i.minus.com/iuSUpcTtZaZUf.png)
And after that:
(http://i.minus.com/ibhWRqN46kmPTH.png)
Now let's see how it works in-game (only the first section have been modified).
This picture shows the opposite wing where no Custom Normals on outer section are present:
(http://i.minus.com/ibaYxKeGQWMt7x.jpg)
And now the wing where Custom Normals on outer section are present:
(http://i.minus.com/ihsL1e0TUhxX4.jpg)
It seem to work pretty well, but now the problem are the shadows... When we change the glider's/sun's position/orientation, at certain angle the outer section will receive shadows, and the seam will be more visible (it will be very useful if we could exclude certain materials/objects from receiving shadows).
(http://i.minus.com/i39tprBBUbxdj.jpg)
Note that in all the screens, the wings are a bit over-flexed towards down, especially the first section . In "normal" circumstances it's harder to notice the splits between the sections.
All of this would not have been necessary if we had armature based deformation...
-
Well your results are pretty good I'd say :)
(http://i.minus.com/i3lZNDmvDZrJA.png)
To explain what I was getting at.... look at this image...
Now the sections to the right and left of this section.... duplicate it with this section but use an alpha texture on these sections so as they're invisible ingame...
Now endcaps, I know you've added them so as to stop seeing through the wing when flexing.. but by using them there's a possibility that the render engine is 'nailing' those points firmly in place and preventing smoothing (to a degree)
What might work is a short 5 degree 'knuckle' and 'socket' arrangement in this area...
-
Well your results are pretty good I'd say :)
(http://i.minus.com/i3lZNDmvDZrJA.png)
To explain what I was getting at.... look at this image...
Now the sections to the right and left of this section.... duplicate it with this section but use an alpha texture on these sections so as they're invisible ingame...
Now endcaps, I know you've added them so as to stop seeing through the wing when flexing.. but by using them there's a possibility that the render engine is 'nailing' those points firmly in place and preventing smoothing (to a degree)
What might work is a short 5 degree 'knuckle' and 'socket' arrangement in this area...
I don't really get it why duplicate the sections and make them invisible in-game...
With or without end caps, the smoothing will always remain the same. Unless the animation is armature based deformation, the smoothing won't dynamically change in-game, no matter what you do with the objects...
However, I'll do it my way and send the plane to you via PM to see the results in real-time :)
-
Ok, I just found a more efficient way to hide the seams/gaps between sections :) No need for outer caps on each anymore, therefore the shadows won't cause problems now.
Are the wings flexing too much? I'm not sure.
(http://i.minus.com/i1YL7Bn1Hgy4u.jpg)(http://i.minus.com/iv1AUchTRnz9n.jpg)
Simon, I think I can already release it with this basic WngFlex until you work on the code needed in the flight model. What do you think?
I'll send it to you via PM now to check it out ;)
-
Yeah go for it.... I have loads of web space if you've ever any need of it.
-
Yeah go for it.... I have loads of web space if you've ever any need of it.
Great, I'll try to release it today, if time allows me.
Thanks! it's nice to know :) But right now I have a lot of storage space on Mediafire.com, Google Drive and Mega.co.nz. :P
-
Just flown the glider, flys real well.... shame it's not 100% fdm, waiting on the developers to get to me on the problem...
But still will get people thinking of the possibilities...
If you fancy a real challenge, need to think about damage animation, texture swaps and overlays to each individual section of the wing, fuselage and cockpit glass...
-
Download (http://www.mediafire.com/download/3hhb3at985mnoak/ASK-13.Levi.otx)
(August 27, 2014)
Released on August 27, 2014
Features:- Basic Wing Flex (upgrade pending).
- Two different camera positions (using Mixture).
- Animated ailerons.
- Animated air brakes (using throttle).
- Animated rudder.
- Animated elevator & elevator trim.
- Animated rudder pedals (front & rear).
- Animated air brakes handles.
- Animated elevator trim handles.
- Animated yokes (front & rear).
- Animated canopy (using gear key).
- Sounds for:
- General wind.
- Air brakes wind.
- Roll.
- Creak % Vario beep based on AoA.
- Working instruments/gauges:
- Turn indicator (front & rear).
- Air speed indicator (front & rear).
- Vertical speed indicator (front & rear).
- Compass (front & rear).
- Altimeter (front & rear).
Release Video:
Outerra Anteworld - [Release] Schleicher ASK-13 (glider) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HaeWQPg40w#ws)
-
First!!!
And..... Yay!! Looks great!
Now we just need some actual wind. ;D
-
First!!!
And..... Yay!! Looks great!
Thanks!
So... you're MultiTesseract (https://www.youtube.com/user/MultiTesseract)from YouTube! nice, I didn't know that :D
Now we just need some actual wind. ;D
Yep, that's a must have for a glider I guess :D
-
First!!!
And..... Yay!! Looks great!
Thanks!
So... you're MultiTesseract (https://www.youtube.com/user/MultiTesseract)from YouTube! nice, I didn't know that :D
Now we just need some actual wind. ;D
Yep, that's a must have for a glider I guess :D
I have no idea how hard it is to program such a thing, even if its just faked random gusts, but the fact that even some Ipad/tablet sims can pull it off argues that the overhead is not necessarily all that high.
Here's hoping.
-
Nice work fellas! 8) 8)
-
If it was was me i'd keep, wind, thermals and turbulence inside JSBsim, having dialogue box control and such within Outerra.
" you don't have a dog and bark ”
-
If it was was me i'd keep, wind, thermals and turbulence inside JSBsim, having dialogue box control and such within Outerra.
" you don't have a dog and bark ”
For myself I don't care how it gets done. The big advantage I might see with JSBsim is that they could leave it up to the community to do the grunt work while they primarily provide the interface.
-
Really beautifull and again great job on the animation!
-
Really beautifull and again great job on the animation!
Bomber and Levi, your glider release info is now at Avsim as well.
http://forum.avsim.net/topic/450324-released-sleicher-ask-13-glider-for-outerra/ (http://forum.avsim.net/topic/450324-released-sleicher-ask-13-glider-for-outerra/)
-
And over at the T4T website! 8) http://www.target4today.com/ (http://www.target4today.com/)
-
Levi or Bomber, any tips on getting working gauges in Outerra? This question popped up on Avsim. I think somebody else might be interested in making some planes one day........
-
Incredible work there guys !
-
Really beautifull and again great job on the animation!
Thank you M7 :)
Really beautifull and again great job on the animation!
Bomber and Levi, your glider release info is now at Avsim as well.
http://forum.avsim.net/topic/450324-released-sleicher-ask-13-glider-for-outerra/ (http://forum.avsim.net/topic/450324-released-sleicher-ask-13-glider-for-outerra/)
Great, thanks!
And over at the T4T website! 8) http://www.target4today.com/ (http://www.target4today.com/)
Cool!
Incredible work there guys !
Thanks PytonPago! :)
-
Levi or Bomber, any tips on getting working gauges in Outerra? This question popped up on Avsim. I think somebody else might be interested in making some planes one day........
Yes, I've already seen that question there... I'll try to answer it later with an example or something.
-
great contribution .. great job .
-
updated FDM
http://target4today.com/_posted_images_/2014-08/ASK-13.xml (http://target4today.com/_posted_images_/2014-08/ASK-13.xml)
right click save as
Levi, can you add this to your download please...
Regards
Simon
P.S.
I'm off on holiday tomorrow to the sea side, I'll see if I can find the time to add the wingflex code into the FDM calc....but if not be a weeks time..
-
updated FDM
http://target4today.com/_posted_images_/2014-08/ASK-13.xml (http://target4today.com/_posted_images_/2014-08/ASK-13.xml)
right click save as
Levi, can you add this to your download please...
Regards
Simon
P.S.
I'm off on holiday tomorrow to the sea side, I'll see if I can find the time to add the wingflex code into the FDM calc....but if not be a weeks time..
Great!
Link updated.
Download (http://www.mediafire.com/download/3hhb3at985mnoak/ASK-13.Levi.otx)
(August 30, 2014)
Update:
(August 30, 2014)
-
ok Winglfex code added into the flight model and updated animation..
http://target4today.com/_posted_images_/2014-09/ASK-13.rar (http://target4today.com/_posted_images_/2014-09/ASK-13.rar)
right click save as
Levi, can you add this to your download please...
Regards
Simon
-
Download (http://www.mediafire.com/download/3hhb3at985mnoak/ASK-13.Levi.otx)
(September 16, 2014)
Update:
(September 16, 2014)
-
Anyone fancy replicating some of these scenes in a video?
Dream of Paradise: http://youtu.be/azIRvqGDK4A
-
I already thought about something like this. Did some test footage yesterday, and chose some music, but decided to put it on hold until we have some clouds.
-
Anyone fancy replicating some of these scenes in a video?
Dream of Paradise: http://youtu.be/azIRvqGDK4A
Wow, it's really close from where I live ;D
In fact I was planning to make a scenery here since it's a pretty famous gliding spot. The airport visible in the begining of the video was in my list for this scene.
-
I wonder how hard it would be to implement one of those ground based glider launchers. Or maybe a script where you could fly a plane to a certain location and hit release, which would immediately transfer you to a glider spawned just behind your aircraft.......
-
The tow isn't too hard....
-
Basically its all down to a keyboard extension.... although....
Thinking about it I can't believe that Javascript doesn't have a keyboard event... it's all I need..
Keyboard x button down... set jsbsim parameter equals 1
keyboard x button up... set jsbsim parameter equals 0
I can do the jsbsim bit...surely the javascript code bit is possible ?
Can I use this...somehow
var value = event.keyCode;
On a roll now
http://www.asquare.net/javascript/tests/KeyCode.html
surley
-
Nice work fellas!! 8)
-
Trying to replicate these maneuvers is pretty darn hard!!! The Schleicher is much more sluggish than this. I wonder how it compares to reality?
Oh, and me wants vapor trails in Outerra!!! ;D
www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3NyptGJzLo
-
Trying to replicate these maneuvers is pretty darn hard!!! The Schleicher is much more sluggish than this. I wonder how it compares to reality?
Oh, and me wants vapor trails in Outerra!!! ;D
www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3NyptGJzLo
The Swift S1 is an acrobatic glider, while the ASK-13 is mostly used for training, thereof the two seats :)
I'm sure pulling those maneuvers with the S1 is hard, but I think it's safe to say that it's next to impossible even for the most skilled one to pull it off with the ASK-13 thanks to its aerodynamics :)
And yes. Vapor trails for Outerra! Would be really awesome with the MIG :D
-
Just needs a 3d mesh imported into outerra, the flight model won't take me longer than than a week....
-
http://youtu.be/hGkEAh8ilSg
-
Nice video, thank you aWac9!
-
thank you
the credit goes to you and others like you, who provide valuable content.
I have fun.
:)
-
Download (http://www.mediafire.com/download/3hhb3at985mnoak/ASK-13.Levi.otx)
(March 28, 2015)
Update:
(March 28, 2015)
- Added lights (gauges, cockpit, strobe). As usual, using the control panel at the top of the script, you can turn on and off these group of lights.
- Added various cameras (pilot, copilot, tail tip, left wing and right wing). Use 'V' key.
(http://i.minus.com/ijKc11c818yFa.jpg)(http://i.minus.com/iIRgGKDYmJ7DJ.jpg)(http://i.minus.com/ibq8fCLChVfKsz.jpg)(http://i.minus.com/ilEFqN8qJ4Uhz.jpg)(http://i.minus.com/ieb8Cw6WdQOD7.jpg)(http://i.minus.com/ibsYAePFPB0snS.jpg)
The strobe light is steady right now, should I make it flash?
-
Download (http://www.mediafire.com/download/3hhb3at985mnoak/ASK-13.Levi.otx)
(March 28, 2015)
Update:
(March 28, 2015)
- Added lights (gauges, cockpit, strobe). As usual, using the control panel at the top of the script, you can turn on and off these group of lights.
- Added various cameras (pilot, copilot, tail tip, left wing and right wing). Use 'V' key.
(http://i.minus.com/ijKc11c818yFa.jpg)(http://i.minus.com/iIRgGKDYmJ7DJ.jpg)(http://i.minus.com/ibq8fCLChVfKsz.jpg)(http://i.minus.com/ilEFqN8qJ4Uhz.jpg)(http://i.minus.com/ieb8Cw6WdQOD7.jpg)(http://i.minus.com/ibsYAePFPB0snS.jpg)
The strobe light is steady right now, should I make it flash?
Probably.
Thank You!!!
-
OMG !!! So young and having such skillz on a glider ... hes practically doing fighter-jet acrobatics on it ! :o So much enwy ...
Also interesting how much G-forces hes going trough.
-
Update to the flight model to come..... We need to work on a wind map...
That's great! I'm not sure if I can help with the wind map, though.
The strobe light is steady right now, should I make it flash?
Probably.
Thank You!!!
Hmm, maybe will come with the upcoming FDM update.
-
No problem. I just think a blinking strobe attracts attention, while a steady light could be mistaken for a star, or something in the dark.
-
No problem. I just think a blinking strobe attracts attention, while a steady light could be mistaken for a star, or something in the dark.
That's right, I completely agree with you. ;)
-
Guys, I've been busy here there and everywhere, but wanted your opinion on this flight model update..
http://target4today.com/_posted_files_/ASK-13.Levi.otx
-
Didn't have a lot of time to test, but it seems like roll is way more slow than it was before, I guess it makes sense when you consider the size of the wings :)
-
¿Have we identified the real pilots in OT forums? (I just know about ramyfly).
I really want to help, but all I can say is "it feels different". Real pilots, on the contrary, can give the accurate feedback you need to achieve the accurate flight models you pursue ( wich is great, by the way! :) )
As you say, "data is king": In my case I'm digging every where for accurate reliable photos, as in this case, you need accurate reliable opinions... I can only offer you ugly sketches. :(
-
The flightsim community (and the real pilots within) are very very FSX centric at this time, and it can be hard for anything with less features to attract attention. Its a catch 22, since real pilots are needed to comment on the FDM's to help make them better, and the FDM's have to be very good to attract more real pilots............ =|
-
"Outerra has so much incredible potential. I definitely think this is the future platform for flight sims. Nothing else can really compare".
Words from ramyfly... a real pilot. OT have many strengths even in this development state... We just need a few pilots who appreciate those strengths and give some feedback... they don't have to uninstall FSX to do it.
-
Cheers guys, I appreciate the difficulties we have as non pilots in testing the accuracy of flight models...
Yes the roll, pitch and yaw rate dampening has been adjusted after discovering the unit mistake I made.
I've also added ground effect, increasing lift and reducing induced drag when within a wingspan of the ground.... This should give an increased floating feeling when at this height.
-
¿Have we identified the real pilots in OT forums? (I just know about ramyfly).
Yep. Bomber, maybe you should PM ramyfly to ask him if he can test this version. I can't remember if he said he had already flown a glider, but he's a pilot for sure.
-
I'm a commercial pilot and flying instructor, I flew a K13 when I was about 16.
Just had a try, the rudder axis appears reversed, I have the same in the Cessna too, so it makes testing difficult when the reaction of an axis like yaw go against intuition.
-
"I'm a commercial pilot and flying instructor"
Albricias!!! :D
-
I'm a commercial pilot and flying instructor, I flew a K13 when I was about 16.
Just had a try, the rudder axis appears reversed, I have the same in the Cessna too, so it makes testing difficult when the reaction of an axis like yaw go against intuition.
Check the j-stick controls and swap them around....
-
I guess I could, but then my rudder would be reversed for all the other aircraft.
-
Oh well they got here first I suppose.
-
I guess I could, but then my rudder would be reversed for all the other aircraft.
Yup! Thats what made me a bit reluctant.
-
I reversed the controls to test the K13 anyway just so things felt natural for me.
My thoughts:
roll is very slow, much slower than I think it should be.
it has what seems to be a very nose down attitude for level flight but I must find a decent way to set up trim (assuming it works)
I could not spin it at all, even flick rolls were difficult, always seemed to go right despite rudder input.
I could not do a loop without going way into the yellow arc close to Vne, I recall the K13 was easy to loop.
Slip ball seems to give reversed sense indications.
-
it has what seems to be a very nose down attitude for level flight but I must find a decent way to set up trim (assuming it works)
I've always thought that. if you remove your hand from the controls, rather than a smooth descent it tends to nose down and dive a bit. Trim never seems to work for me, but not being a pilot, I had no idea if this was accurate. I was hoping my friend Jcomm, who is an actual glider pilot would take a look, but not sure if he has, yet.
-
I think Jcomm is still busy trying to make up his mind which combat flight simulator he likes best, I have spoken to him at the DCS and IL2 forums.
-
I think Jcomm is still busy trying to make up his mind which combat flight simulator he likes best, I have spoken to him at the DCS and IL2 forums.
Nope, he's backed away from combat sims.
You never know where you will find jcomm next! =D
-
I reversed the controls to test the K13 anyway just so things felt natural for me.
My thoughts:
1)roll is very slow, much slower than I think it should be.
2)it has what seems to be a very nose down attitude for level flight but I must find a decent way to set up trim (assuming it works)
3)I could not spin it at all, even flick rolls were difficult, always seemed to go right despite rudder input.
4)I could not do a loop without going way into the yellow arc close to Vne, I recall the K13 was easy to loop.
5)Slip ball seems to give reversed sense indications.
1)I wonder if there's something not right with my thinking on rotating objects..
Question : does a rotating paddle attain the same speed in a static airflow as opposed to a moving airflow, what's your thoughts on this anyone?
2)it's a glider, there's no thermals and no wind being used at present, so it has to be always going down.... if you take your hands off the controls it attains a 28:1 glide ratio, lift/drag ratio...
3) can you describe a flick roll as you're doing it for me and others to repeat the test ?
4) no comment on this
5) I'll have a look maybe animation incorrect, not a flight model issue as such
-
I reversed the controls to test the K13 anyway just so things felt natural for me.
My thoughts:
1)roll is very slow, much slower than I think it should be.
2)it has what seems to be a very nose down attitude for level flight but I must find a decent way to set up trim (assuming it works)
3)I could not spin it at all, even flick rolls were difficult, always seemed to go right despite rudder input.
4)I could not do a loop without going way into the yellow arc close to Vne, I recall the K13 was easy to loop.
5)Slip ball seems to give reversed sense indications.
1)I wonder if there's something not right with my thinking on rotating objects..
Question : does a rotating paddle attain the same speed in a static airflow as opposed to a moving airflow, what's your thoughts on this anyone?
2)it's a glider, there's no thermals and no wind being used at present, so it has to be always going down.... if you take your hands off the controls it attains a 28:1 glide ratio, lift/drag ratio...
3) can you describe a flick roll as you're doing it for me and others to repeat the test ?
4) no comment on this
5) I'll have a look maybe animation incorrect, not a flight model issue as such
1. I am lost with the rotating paddle theory, I simply find the rate of roll to be very slow, this basically means the ailerons are relatively ineffective and the rate of roll is not significantly improved with higher airspeed.
2. I am aware it's a glider, I am aware they are in a constant descent (even in a thermal), I said it has a nose down 'attitude' as in the deck angle of the fuselage seems to point down too much for 'level' flight.
3.a flick roll is a spin induced from high speed instead of from a stall entry, it uses the same pro-spin inputs i.e. full back stick and full rudder deflection and held through the manoeuvre until recovery which usually only needs the controls to neutral.
4. further comment is that I would expect a loop to be attainable from within the green arc close to Va (start of the yellow arc) but it has been a long time.
5. yes, it may be animation, just something I observed and stood out for me as a pilot.
-
http://target4today.com/_posted_files_/ASK-13.Levi.otx
Thanks for the comments bongodriver, try this update to the roll dampening logic.
regards
Simon
-
Roll certainly feels better.
-
if you get a chance also you might look at the rudder on both the K13 and the Cessna, for me they are both working in reverse, the animation is correct but their effect is wrong.
-
Ok.....
-
http://target4today.com/_posted_files_/ASK-13.Levi.otx
Ok I've sorted out the rudder logic....
-
Hi, i thought that since i fly gliders comparable to this one in real life i would give it a try and give some feedback. But do i need the full version of this game to test these mods?
-
Hi, i thought that since i fly gliders comparable to this one in real life i would give it a try and give some feedback. But do i need the full version of this game to test these mods?
... yes, you do ...
-
Bought the game. i'm impressed with what you guys have been able to do with it.
Ok, here's what i have to say about it:
when i turn i don't really feel like i have to help with the rudder so much to keep it coordinated. i suspect that you have to use more rudder in the real airplane when you bank into the turn to keep it coordinated.
While doing stall-turns i noticed that the plane would not correct itself properly afterwards. usually, if you do the stall-turn correctly, the nose should come around pretty rapidly (to the point where you need opposite rudder to "catch" it)
I was not able to make it drop a wing, nor was i able to spin it.
I'm not sure about this, as it can be really different form aircraft to aircraft, but i would expect the elevator to be a bit more responsive when looking at how big the control surface is.
All in all i have to say im really impressed of your work though :D
-
Thanks for your comments in both this thread and the cessna...
I agree with everything you've said, and I could add more besides...
This flight model is just 'a means to an end'...The end being a better way at creating realistic flight models that incorporates damage to aerodynamic capabilities within its very core rather that being an add on at a later date.
It's undergoing it's 18th rewrite at the moment, which will address some drag issues.
The thing about this glider is its forward swept wings... Usually a planes wing stalls from the root outwards, the centre of pressure moving outwards and backwards increasing static margin, making the plane more laterally stable whilst maintaining aileron control... This planes wing however stalls from the centre of the wing both inwards and outwards at the same time... It's very odd.
Simon.
-
I completely understand that it's just a rough model for now :)
I'm also quite familiar with the forward swept wing design as i have flown the l-23 blanik quite a lot.
When i did my stall practice and spin practice i found out that the l-23 is easy to keep in a stall with wings level, but it wants to drop a wing sometimes. other than that i also noticed that if you don't apply a little bit of opposite aileron in the spin it will simply come out of the spin even if you hold the stick all the way back. We don't know if that is something universal for the l-23's or if it's a slight variation with our plane.
Im new here, so excuse me if im repeating what has already been acknowledged, but the wing seem to bend more to negative G's than to positive. i heard somebody say it was more dependent on AoA than G's?
The forward swept wings also put alot of twisting pressure on the wings. Especially if you fly upside down (not allowed to fly inverted with two people).
The reason for it is so that you don't have change ballast depending on the 2nd pilot. (cog stays pretty much the same)
But i can see how hard it would be to make a precise flight model.
Anyways, really love your models. been playing around with them whole day, cant wait so see the future of this engine.
-
Hi everyone... a request
I need the help of a German speaker, to read the pilots manual and calculate the position of the CoG and Centre of lift...
knock up a small fag packet sketch, photo it and post it up..
I just need a cross check, there's something I'm not sure on..
Anyone up for helping, and it can be multiple people (as a double cross check) the pilots manual is within the docs section of the download...
Regards
Simon
-
Hi Simon,
how can I be help...
BR,
Stefan
-
Hi Stefan,
If you look at the pilots handbook.pdf within the docs folder of the Ask-13 download, there's various diagrams showing the CoG and centre of lift positions and the dimensions froma reference point. This being the front spar whch is also equal to the rear pilots position...
I'd like someone to do some maths and determine the location of the CoG (based on 2 pilots) and the cente of lift and thus the static margin and if the centre of lift is infront or behind the CoG...
Yes I've done this myself but would like some cross checking on it..
Regards
Simon
-
Hmm ... either I am blind, or I do not know what you talking about ... where can I find this PDF-File? ::) Please give me a direct link to it. Thank's.
-
at work at present will do so once home...
thanks
Simon
-
my apologies looks like I didn't include this folder in the download... oops
http://learnandfly.com/download/ASK-13%20-%20Flight%20manu
pages 17 18 & 19
can you determine the location of the CoG
-
http://learnandfly.com/download/ASK-13%20-%20Flight%20manu
Not Found
Sorry, but the page you were trying to view does not exist.
correct file here: http://learnandfly.com/ask-13-flight-manual/ (http://learnandfly.com/ask-13-flight-manual/) :)
and Manual is entirely in English, so what should I translate it? ???
In addition, Page-18 is very bad copies the the some numbers are unreadable. =|
-
http://planeur-bailleau.org/docs/Manuels%20de%20vol/ASK_13.pdf
It's not a simple translation I need but a confirmation of where I'm working out the CoG of the plane to be under a 2 man situation.
It might be that I have to contact a gliding club with regards this plane..
-
I honestly do not know what you do not understand.
So if I have understood correctly, then there is no fixed number. For whatever reason.
It could most probably be because the pilot has an adjustable seat, or the glider has the Different
empty weight. The MIN and MAX numbers are already entered in table, so you need not to be expected.
As an an example:
GL = 280kp
min-490mm
max-545mm
So, difference - 55/2 = 27.5 (with MIN+MAX)
R=CoG
In these new documentaries the table has been extended even to 2 (330-340) further figures.
BR,
Stefan
p.s. see page-10 & 11...
-
Not able to access my home computer. Is ridge lift from wind a thing now?
-
I don't think ridge lift as it's more about an upward moving airstream following deflection...
however.... if we talk about the basics of ridge lift there might be a solution especially as there's google maps integral to the application.
-
I honestly do not know what you do not understand.
.
.
GL = 280kp
min-490mm
max-545mm
So, difference - 55/2 = 27.5 (with MIN+MAX)
R=CoG
So Stefan... from the diagrams you're saying the CoG is min 490, max 545mm towards the tail measure from the front wing spar ?
trust me we're getting there..
Simon
-
Simon, according to the drawing (ASK-13 Balancing sheet) - YES.
So, G1 to G2, as GL is in the case = empty weight.
In the page -10/11 is told about it. Therefore, if you want to have
an absolute point-0(CoG), you must still be divided by 2, the 2-figures.
I see it so ... :)
-
So what are you guys looking for? The best possible CoG for the particular plane? or just the allowed "area"?
-
Actually what I was looking for was confirmation that I was reading the diagram correctly...
Yes it's a simple diagram, however I was reading it with a closed mind (not good) and had convinced myself that the diagram had to be wrong... I know how insane is that, a diagram over 30 years old and I was convinced I was the first person to find the obvious error in it.
Anyway the conformation that I was reading it correctly and a little holiday reading has convinced me that it is possible for the centre of left to be before the CoG and for the h-stabs to have a -2 degree angle.
Simon