Slashdot Mirror

In the current X-Plane package are two planes (a jet and a glider?) that are specially designed for the martian atmosphere http://www.x-plane.com/mars.html.

Hey, that's a great idea... I'm amazed nobody's ever done it before!

You wanna talk about the real thing vs CG? Just watch the documentary "Under pressure: Making of The Abyss" that comes on the special edition of The Abyss DVDs-- Cameron didn't want to use CG unless he absolutely had to, he wanted to the movie to look as realistic as possible. So instead of using CG they actually built the giant underwater base featured in the movie inside an uncomplete nuclear reactor tower and then filled it with 7 and a half million gallons of water, used real submersibles and ROVs and even had real aliens I heard :) The scenes where Ed Harris was "breathing oxygenated liquid" wasn't real though (but the rat scene was ). For those scenes, Ed Harris was just holding his breath and actually in one scene, between takes, almost drown. Since they were actually shooting the whole thing underwater he had to rely on his buddy divers to give him a spare regulator between takes for those scenes. Watch the documentary for details on the mishap.

Additionally James Cameron stayed underwater for most of his life during that time, and while decompressing he had enough time to review the film that was shot during the day. It was the most expensive movie shoot of all time, only to be eclipsed by Terminator 2, only to be eclipsed by True Lies, only to be eclipsed by.. dare I say it... Titanic.

And now for the good stuff. Apparently Deep Core, the underwater base in the Abyss STILL exists inside of that Nuclear Reactor, they never moved it! Well, 2 hero-nerds decided to sneak onto the property and check it out. The story is incredible and yes, they took pictures!!!

http://www.x-plane.com/adventures/abyss.html

After you read it and are able to find your jaw where you dropped it, give this a read on how hard The Abyss was to shoot (and FFS watch the documentary on the DVD!), then come back and mod this post up, for great jaw dropping justice!

DAFIF data contains all sorts of aviation related airspace and airport information. Here's a link:

https://164.214.2.62/products/digitalaero/index.cf m

Make some neat tools for that and a zillion simmers (and lots of poor pilots like me) will love you forever. Check out X-Plane while you're at it. Or even better, the open-source Flight Gear could probably use your help!

When it gets rid of SSOne and turnes on the afterburners, it sure does go, huh?

You can fly it in xplane. It has an incredible power to weight ratio.

Thanks for your corrections.

AoA doesn't really come into it much. Once you enter the atmosphere, you're losing huge amounts of velocity. At hypersonic velocities, L/D ratios are awful, pretty much no matter what your AoA is.

It depends. Obviously, the atmosphere is much thinner the higher up you go. The sooner you can obtain a flight envelope (rather than the "falling refrigerator" configuration of the shuttle), the longer you can take in your descent. Keep in mind that the Space Shuttle intentionally bleeds off a lot of speed by doing a supersonic slalom on the way down. This is such a difficult flight path, that only one human has ever flown reentry on manual. All other flights were handled by the computer. There's a nice description of reentry here.

At least two designs other than the shuttle's current one were considered:

On faster descent:

Despite these arguments that eventually prevailed, at least one straight-wing design was prominent for a time, in part because of its designer. Max Faget, the chief engineer at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center (later renamed the Johnson Space Center), drew up plans for two straight-winged vehicles--one an orbiter and the other a booster stage--that rode piggyback and were both piloted and fully reusable. [snip] Faget argued that his design would enable the orbiter to return to Earth at a sharp angle that would significantly heat only the orbiter's lower surfaces (Faget, pp. 52-54)

On slower descent:

If it weren't for the payload bay requirement, a lifting body configuration might have worked well. Lifting bodies could have been a good compromise between ballistic capsules and delta- or straight-winged vehicles. They are lighter, have simpler structures, and encounter fewer reentry heating problems than winged vehicles. Lifting bodies have better lift-to-drag ratios than ballistic capsules, which enables them to be piloted more accurately (Peebles, December 1979, p. 487). Lifting bodies had even been considered for the Apollo command modules (Peebles, November 1979, p. 439). Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, NASA and the Air Force had conducted significant research on various lifting body programs such as the X-23A and the X-24A, demonstrating, among other characteristics, the maneuverability of wingless vehicles (Reed, pp. 129--131, 140).

Source

I don't have a link at the moment, but descent was a big problem in the early rocket plane experiments. If they descended too slowly, they'd lose their flight envelope and become difficult to control. But if they descended too quickly, the craft would heat up at an incredible rate.

I've flown on Mars in simulation. (X-Plane Rules!) It's quite difficult, because inertia is the same, but the low density atmosphere means you have very large turning radii. For going in straight lines, it's not bad. Turning, landing, taking off, or anything else that requires velocity changes made using normal airplane controls (rudder, aileron, etc) is difficult.

Try X-Plane instead. The scenery isn't great (Terrain elevation is accurate but there's no real building detail) but the flight model blows MSFS out of the sky. And it ships with a B-52 model.

If you feel like taking one of these for a little test drive, you can find a virtual version here.

You need X-Plane to use it. Check it out. X-Plane is actually a pretty sweet flight sim.

Austin Meyer, the author of X-Plane has been working with some military and implemented some functions for them so that they could turn X-Plane into a UCAV pilot training program. The details can be read in the Beta new features announcement.

Perhaps the USAF has more lenient standards. The FAA, on the other hand, has not licensed MS Flight Sim. 2000, at least, had numerous painfully glaring flaws in its physics model when I tried it. Everything from turbulence to clouds to icing, ground effect, all sorts of things were lacking or poorly implemented. Yes, I am a pilot.

X Plane, on the other hand, is FAA-certified. In fact, its physics model is so extensive that it is able to determine handling characteristics based on aerofoil shapes (and has been used to model such characteristics before). It still isn't quite realistic in every regard, but it's a far sight better than MS Flight Sim.

Only problem with Orbiter is that these kids are using Macs, and Orbiter runs on Windows. It's the thought that counts, though ... and I can't criticize anybody who starts a good posting like that off with Celestia (which is available for, and look terrific on, a Mac; on an iBook, it might not be very high res, and might be a little glitchy, but it's open source). Another terrific, high-reality simulation for Mac and Windows is the X-Plane flight sim.

This means that it would require a wind about 10x as strong as here to produce the same amount of force on something like this rover.

Fortunately, the gravity on Mars is about 1/3rd of ours, so in theory you'd need only about 1/3rd as much force to move your giant beach ball, so I guess you could get the same amount of movement on Mars as you do here with only 3x as much wind.

(Some more thoughts along this line can be found here, which is a page about a simulated plane flying on Mars.)

Apparantly Mars does have strong winds, so maybe this isn't as crazy as I first thought :)

As an example, the article talks about a 20 m/s wind on Mars -- that would produce the same thrust on a stationary object as a 2 m/s wind would here on Earth -- not very much. But once the object started moving, the thrust would not drop off as fast as it does here (after all, wind won't usually push something faster than the wind is going) so if the ball was light enough, it might actually move at a decent clip. But it would have to be very light.

Austin Meyer's X-plane is the perfect application to model this and try it. A number of companies use this software to model future crafts in order to fine tune them. Test pilots have also been known to use the software to brush up on the craft before construction is complete..

If you check out the main page, you'll see some pictures of a CarterCopter craft that was built/tested in X-plane and then put into production. Pretty neat stuff.

Anyhow, the Opensky people need only to model the craft in X-plane to get a feel for how feasible it is in real life.

The software he used, X-Plane is being used by commercial aircraft and spacecraft companies. Most notably Scaled Composites for simulating SpaceShip One and Carter Copters for simulating their helicopter designs.

Not to mention Jetstream people using it in a full-size Jetstream simulator instead of official replacement components (which are way too expensive) - and that X-Plane is certified for training pilots by the FAA.

Popular Science has a good introductory article about X-Plane.

So yeah, I'd say that for a ballpark simulation - results obtainable in that program are probably damn close to what you'd get in real life. Especially since it's already been used to help design at least one real spacecraft.

The software he used, X-Plane is being used by commercial aircraft and spacecraft companies. Most notably Scaled Composites for simulating SpaceShip One and Carter Copters for simulating their helicopter designs.

Not to mention Jetstream people using it in a full-size Jetstream simulator instead of official replacement components (which are way too expensive) - and that X-Plane is certified for training pilots by the FAA.

Popular Science has a good introductory article about X-Plane.

So yeah, I'd say that for a ballpark simulation - results obtainable in that program are probably damn close to what you'd get in real life. Especially since it's already been used to help design at least one real spacecraft.

I've done a few tests in X-Plane and came to the conclusion that with today's rockets and advanced materials it might be fairly easy to make a suborbital plane that can go from Paris to New-York in under an hour. I've got three different designs that could do it. The one obstacle is leading edge temperature at supersonic and hypersonic speeds, but shockwave shaping and the use of cryogenic fluid (liquid hydrogen ?) like on the 70s' XB-70 Valkyrie can overcome it.

The solar flare produced proton wind in speed exceeding what the SOHO probe can measure. It also saturated the X-Ray detectors on NOAA's GOES satellites. X28 is an understatement, the actual value cannot be precisely determined, but is thought of being somewhere around X40 to X50. This is a logarithmic scale, NOAA says the peak X-Ray emission reached approximately 2 * 10e-3 W/ squared meter.

M-class solar flares' order of magnitude is 10e-5W/squared meter, X-class' is 10e-4W/ squared meter, and anything beyond 10e-3W/squared meter :
- was unheard of until a few days ago.
- is a Y-class MEGA FLARE! Tin-foil hat time.

On unrelated news, X-Plane now supports borealis auroras...

Depends on the aircraft, since there are different sets.

Austin (the guy that does X-Plane) has some recommendations on this page (scroll down), and seems to prefer CH Products line of USB products, although (as he points out), anything will do.

One other thing that flight simulators can let you do with growing capability: you can design your own planes with some tools.

In particular, X-Plane has a really cool interface that lets you build planes. It uses physical models to determine how your plane will fly, then you can jump in the simulator and give it a shot.

Pretty neat.

The only flight sim I know that is free (as in beer) and penguin compatible is something called "FlightGear". It seems pretty cool, but I hear it's not quite up to X-Plane standards, which I believe to be neither free (as in beer) nor Linux friendly. I wonder what is available, besides FlightGear, for the open source crowd?

X-Plane Link for above post: http://www.x-plane.com/descrip.html

Today, four years into the five-year
partnership, the protests are over and
Microsoft technology is firmly entrenched at MIT.

Aeronautical design classes now use
Microsoft's Flight Simulator computer program.

Whatever happened to X-Plane?

X-Plane's flight model pwns FS2004's in terms of realism, but you can head down to the store and pick up FS2004 now for less as opposed to X-Plane, which you have to get via snailmail. (Both programs require the CD in the drive for copy protection.) The global scenery for X-Plane is $20 extra, and Mars is $10 over that, so a full X-Plane install is almost $90. (You can download the global scenery if you want to, but their servers are throttled to 2-3 kb/s, if they're even up.)

X-Plane's interface, not to put too fine a point on it, blows. It is very difficult to use compared to FS2004, it's very non-Windoze-standard. FS2004 owns it on graphics quality as well. Both sims can use real weather downloaded off the Internet (built-in w/FS2004, requires a downloadable utility for X-Plane). The big plus for X-Plane is that it comes with world scenery and aircraft builder tools, which FS2004 doesn't.

FS2004 is (IMO) the better buy for those who just want to pretend they're a pilot. X-Plane is better for the hardcore pilot who wants maximum flight model realism, the "what if" hobbyist that wants to design and try out their own aircraft, and for folks who aren't scared off of a clunky interface. And, a big plus, X-Plane works on OS X.

You can check out x-plane at www.xplane.com. You can download the 122 MB program there, it's the full program but unless you have an X-Plane CD in your drive, (a) it's limited to the Southern California area, and (b) it disables your joystick after 6 minutes.

If you look here, you'll find that XPlane has FAA approval for use in pilot training - the only consumer-level flight sim so far to achieve this.

And just to add to the fun, it can get real-time weather info off the net and add that in to your scenery :-)

It has a realistic physics engine - You can't just fly any plane on Mars, as Austin Meyer, author of X-Plane, writes himself ... Get more of the hard sell of the flight engine here.

It has a realistic physics engine - You can't just fly any plane on Mars, as Austin Meyer, author of X-Plane, writes himself ... Get more of the hard sell of the flight engine here.

X-Plane. Period. Available here. It does it all, it's hackable, there are tons of free data files on the 'net you can download - new planes, scenery, etc.

For a few dollars more you can get the Mars scenery discs and fly a plane on Mars.

And the price is very reasonable compared to some other offerings.

Dang, just checked the site and saw that there is a version 7 out, guess I need to upgrade... again...

Maybe he was working on some cockpit graphics for X-Plane.

X-Plane is apparently an eerily accurate-enough flight simulator that plane builders are now using it to model planes to be built, making changes in the simulator before buiilding the real thing. Cool!

You could always try Space Combat, also by Austin Myers.

I have been using X-Plane for a few years and I and my pilot friends use it. My only real dissappointment was when Austin canceled the Linux port, but 6.x will run under wine now, haven't tried 7.x betas.

X-Plane is the only FAA training approved consumer package available. Read the front page on the web site, people have been using this flight program for a couple of years now to model aircraft behaviour during development.

I think you may be confusing ease of flight or level of fun with realistic physics. I had a couple of programs for my bro-in-law to practice with while he was taking flight lessons and he too latched onto X-Plane.

Yes, dynamic modelling is better than static tables. Not only is the performance more in line with reality, but it allows people to design airfoils and aircraft with the included software, and test their performance before any parts are fabricated. No guess work. Real engineering.

It's a hackers dream, because ALL of the flight controls and flight data can be imported/exported over a network. It also has a very sensible plugin system, and the author encourages people to come up with new and cool tools without any licensing restrictions. It might not be open source, but the architecture is very open.

X-Plane is the flight simulator of choice for many companies, including Scaled Composites, the builders of Spaceship One. It's also FAA approved for training towards commercial, transport, and instrument certificates.

Not only is the flight model incredibly accurate, but you also have to deal with differences in traction between tires on a wet runway, damaged windscreens from hail, and more equipment failures than you can shake a stick at.

It's amazingly beautiful with a reasonable graphics card and the latest scenery plugins, and it can use real-time weather information from NOAA.

It's not a toy or a game, even though it may be fun. It's as close to flying as you can get on your PC. I could go on and on, but it's probably better that you head to the web site. :)

http://www.x-plane.com/

The first rants full of CAPS I have read that I didn't notice the CAPS. It just reeks of excitement.

MARS! FRIGGIN MARS!

The SPACE SHUTTLE! It's a FRIGGIN GLIDER!

The first rants full of CAPS I have read that I didn't notice the CAPS. It just reeks of excitement.

MARS! FRIGGIN MARS!

The SPACE SHUTTLE! It's a FRIGGIN GLIDER!

The screenshots are unbelievable! Look at the little people!

Those of you who have visited the X-Plane site have no doubt found the article, but here's a quick bit for everyone else...

So what sort of planes can fly on Mars? Not anything from Earth, that's for sure. Not enough lift or thrust. A Cessna or Boeing will just sit there on the ground without even moving. Put them in the air and they drop like beveled bricks with no wings. Both of my Mars-plane concepts are much like the U-2 Spyplane (designed to operate at around 100,000 ft, in simlar density air) one with a HUGE high-bypass jet engine built AROUND THE FUSELAGE, and another with a smaller rocket engine in the tail, like the X-15. The rocket plane has a lower-thrust engine, with plenty of fuel, for about 30 minutes of flight or so... the JET plane can fly for hours!

Article link (you'll have to try to ignore the excessive use of ALL CAPS)

I've always thought X-Plane was cool, but after reading this article I was convinced... and that's when I read the article well over a year ago!

I guess I can't really comment on the accuracy, having not actually flown a plane. Also, on the scale of "Flight sim hardcore rankings", I'm really just a dilettante. (OK, that rarely stops people on the forums, but it's just not my style.) But I can comment on the processing power needed to run the dynamic model, and so can you.

The demo is free, runs on Windows and OSX, which is Austin's preferred development platform. Since it is a demo, it only lets you control the plane for a few minutes, but it will let you see how quickly he can do the aerodynamic calculations and experience the realism for yourself.

My opinion: Performance is ok but not great on my 500Mhz G3 ibook (although it is quite playable). It is pretty spiffy on my Athlon 2100. The video cards probably have a lot to do with that, too, not just the aerodynamic model.

I guess I can't really comment on the accuracy, having not actually flown a plane. Also, on the scale of "Flight sim hardcore rankings", I'm really just a dilettante. (OK, that rarely stops people on the forums, but it's just not my style.) But I can comment on the processing power needed to run the dynamic model, and so can you.

The demo is free, runs on Windows and OSX, which is Austin's preferred development platform. Since it is a demo, it only lets you control the plane for a few minutes, but it will let you see how quickly he can do the aerodynamic calculations and experience the realism for yourself.

My opinion: Performance is ok but not great on my 500Mhz G3 ibook (although it is quite playable). It is pretty spiffy on my Athlon 2100. The video cards probably have a lot to do with that, too, not just the aerodynamic model.

Runs on OS X, OS9 and Windows. Warning: Harder to fly than MS Flightsim -- of course!

X-Plane, being fairly realistic, even has an FAA rating so it can be used (with a $150.000 motion platform) to log hours towards your Airline Transport Certificate.

Usually with a pilot's liscence you can only fly small private prop planes. This is cool, but a bit limited.

With a simulator like this he can get any airplane he can think of, and if he installs X-plane he can fly any airplane he can design as well.

• 5-8K for a pilot's liscence and a cessna
• 4k for every plane in the world and more

X-plane does this sort of thing natively using TCP/IP,
costs less, and has a more accurate flight model.

Other info at theX-plane UDP networking information site.
-----

http://www.x-plane.com

This program has FAA endorsement, unlike that other toy I used to use ...

The flight simulator x-plane allows to try various different atmospheres and gravities including mars and piloting the space shuttle in orbit around earth.
flying around mars is actually fairly easy - if you learn to take your turns a little slower - the problem is landing. No air pressure means air brakes, parachutes etc don't work. and low gravity means no traction for tires (no weight but lots of mass). 4 mile long runways may be the norm in the future, but most people nowadays would get bored taxiing for half an hour or so to slow down, so all the airports that have been 'built' on mars all have arresting cables.

X-Plane v7.0beta has both aircraft (apparently Scaled Composites used it for their simulator)

Hmm.. Maybe (and by no means do I mean 'certainly') they have got their physics that well modelled. After all, it wouldn't be the first time that real things got built after testing in a 'game'.

I agree fully.

Probably this link is also mentioned in some other post(s): The Space-Glider

It describes fairly detailed the landing procedure of a SpaceShuttle. Personally I trust this description more than the theories of the TIME article.

Get the X-Plane demo and fly your virtual Solotrek around the world (or on Mars even).

X-Plane has a free demo, which comes with a flight simulator that applies Blade Element Analysis on the whole aircraft for realistic flight behaviour, an aircraft maker, a collection of 40 or so airplanes (real and fantasy ones), many more available on the 'Net, a colelction of basic airfoil profiles and an airfoil maker, geographical data for the whole world and an exhaustive list of the world's airports.

Though it isn't quite free (About $80 USD at the moment), X-Plane does a fantastic job at modeling aerodynamics for aircraft, even letting you design your own aircraft and test them. It is primarily maintained by one person, however Piper Aircraft finds it so useful that they have models on their site that you can "fly" in X-Plane and the Carter Copter was designed and tested using X-Plane.