Discussion:
Flight Models for newbee's
Correu PelDavid
2006-06-14 10:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

I'm studying theory control, and I'd like to play a bit with helicopter's
capabilities.
I'd like to work on their model.
Flightgear works with YAsim, JSBsim and LaRCsim.
I've take a look at the LaRCsim manual. It says it uses "a set of equations
of motion for a rigid-body aircraft in atmospheric and low-earth orbital
flight".
In fact, using the equations of a 6D rigid-body is where I would have
started if I were to choose without more info.

I wonder how the other models work.
For instance, I know the X-plane engine considers the aerodynamic planes. A
totally different point of view from LaRCsim, but still accurate and
working.

Where could I get some info on YAsim and JSBsim?
Could you draw me a shot of the main ideas?

Thanks and sorry for my grammar.

David
Jon S. Berndt
2006-06-14 11:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Where could I get some info on YAsim and JSBsim?
Could you draw me a shot of the main ideas?

You can get more information on JSBSim here:

www.jsbsim.org

There is a paper on JSBSim that I just posted (it is not yet completed)
here:

www.jsbsim.org/CreatingJSBSimAircraft.pdf

There is also a Wiki for JSBSim that includes a FAQ:

www.jsbsim.org/wiki

Jon
GWMobile
2006-06-14 12:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Frankly I have looked a jsbsim and I t uses a lot of envelope
preprocessing. It isn't so much computing the aircraft as doing lookups
under a multitude of circumstances and giving you the response for the
one you are in.

Xplane actually breaks down each airfoil piece and computes the forces
on it as if it were a separate aerodynamic body and then sums them all
while doing a separate fuselage estimation and some downdraft
calcualtion attempts.

Sounds like larcsim just does very approximate lookups.

None of these are good for planes that haven't been stuck in a wind
tunnel and "precomputed"
Post by Correu PelDavid
Hi,
I'm studying theory control, and I'd like to play a bit with
helicopter's capabilities.
I'd like to work on their model.
Flightgear works with YAsim, JSBsim and LaRCsim.
I've take a look at the LaRCsim manual. It says it uses "a set of
equations of motion for a rigid-body aircraft in atmospheric and
low-earth orbital flight".
In fact, using the equations of a 6D rigid-body is where I would have
started if I were to choose without more info.
I wonder how the other models work.
For instance, I know the X-plane engine considers the aerodynamic
planes. A totally different point of view from LaRCsim, but still
accurate and working.
Where could I get some info on YAsim and JSBsim?
Could you draw me a shot of the main ideas?
Thanks and sorry for my grammar.
David
Jon S. Berndt
2006-06-14 13:22:15 UTC
Permalink
Frankly I have looked a jsbsim and it uses a lot of envelope
preprocessing. It isn't so much computing the aircraft as doing lookups
under a multitude of circumstances and giving you the response for the
one you are in.
"Envelope pre-processing"?

Let me expand a little bit on this. JSBSim uses the coefficient buildup
method of calculating forces and moments. Within the aerodynamics section of
the JSBSim aircraft definition for a given aircraft, lookup tables,
mathematical functions, or real values can be used to define aerodynamic
forces and moments. I haven't tried this, yet, but I suspect it may even be
possible to define functions that approximate the X-Plane approach, where
individual contributions due to various "parts" are computed and summed. The
function capability in JSBSim is very powerful, but has not really been
exercised to the best of its capabilities, yet.

The approach that the "big iron" sims take is very similar (if not exactly
similar) to the approach taken by JSBSim. I've worked on several large
simulation projects over the past twenty years. Two that stand out in my
mind are the USAF F-16 simulator and the space shuttle (and spacecraft)
training and engineering simulators I've enjoyed working on, supporting our
manned space program. Those simulators (and other large simulators of which
I am aware) also use the coefficient buildup method to do aerodynamic
modeling. At this time it's just the best way to get accurate and
predictable modeling. The major difference between JSBSim models and models
from these simulators is the data that drives them. The space shuttle
simulator is modeled with lookup tables for which the data fits in two large
printed volumes, each is three inches thick. The lookup tables do
interpolation using smoothing functions.
Xplane actually breaks down each airfoil piece and computes the forces
on it as if it were a separate aerodynamic body
... which is a big approximation that breaks down in some circumstances...
and then sums them all while doing a separate fuselage
estimation and some downdraft calcualtion attempts.
"Estimation" is the key word here. When flight test data is available, or
where the time is taken to derive and compute aero coefficients and
derivatives, the coefficient buildup method theoretically results in better
performance matching in the envelope where most flying is done, in the
"normal" regime. But, the time needs to be taken in obtaining and entering
the data accurately.
Sounds like larcsim just does very approximate lookups.
LaRCSim does *exact* lookups, but modeling is only accurate for where data
is provided.
None of these are good for planes that haven't been stuck in a wind
tunnel and "precomputed"
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but this is exactly what JSBSim is
good for: if you have actual flight test or wind tunnel data, you can use
that to drive JSBSim. That's one thing that wind tunnel data is used for.

Jon
Curtis L. Olson
2006-06-14 13:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by GWMobile
None of these are good for planes that haven't been stuck in a wind
tunnel and "precomputed"
It's true that with all the FlightGear dynamics engines, you need to
have some idea or reasonable guesses as to how the aircraft flies in
order to model it. With X-Plane you don't need to know anything about
performance, you just plug in the mass and geometry and airfoil and the
airplane flies. But if you've never seen the aircraft fly and don't
know anything about it's performance, how do you know if X-Plane is
doing it right? What is the truth? How well is X-Plane guessing?

I think it boils down to this. If you have no idea how your aircraft
will perform, X-Plane's guess is probably just as good as anything else.

But if you do know how your aircraft performs, what is the best
tool/approach to modeling that performance as closely as possible? If
you want to nail specific performance numbers dead on, what is the best
tool/approach?

It's not my intension to knock X-Plane here because I know that an
immense amount of work has gone into the flight dynamics engine to help
refine and improve it's ability to guess aircraft performance based on
the physical geometry and mass of the aircraft alone. It's an
interesting tool, but it's not perfect, and it's certainly not always
the best tool for every dynamics modeling task ... depending on what
types of data you have available and what your end goals are.

Curt.
--
Curtis Olson http://www.flightgear.org/~curt
HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/
FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org
Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Curtis L. Olson
2006-06-14 14:15:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curtis L. Olson
It's true that with all the FlightGear dynamics engines, you need to
have some idea or reasonable guesses as to how the aircraft flies in
order to model it. With X-Plane you don't need to know anything about
performance, you just plug in the mass and geometry and airfoil and the
airplane flies.
Let me add one more comment here to help compare/contrast the different
dynamics engines.

With X-Plane you input the aircraft geometry, mass, and airfoil.
X-Plane takes this data and comes up with it's best approximation of the
aircraft's performance. Again, this is good if you are wondering how
your design might perform.

FlightGear's YASim dynamics engine takes an approach that is not unlike
X-Plane's approach (dividing the aircraft up into sections, computing
the forces on the individual sections, and then summing them up.)
However, YASim has one critical difference. With YASim, you input the
same sort of aircraft mass and geometry data as you would for X-Plane,
but instead of an airfoil, you input actual performance numbers for
cruise and approach. The beauty of YASim is that it has a built in
solver that creates a wing/airfoil with just the right properties so
that you nail your performance numbers dead on for the aircraft mass and
power you have specified.

It is interesting to see the YASim solver in action. If you decrease
the raw power of your engine without changing anything else, you will
get a lower drag, higher lift airfoil. Lower power means you will have
a lower rate of climb, but the reduced drag means you still hit your
cruise numbers dead on, even if it takes longer to get up to your
altitude. And the lift is increased to balance out the reduced power.
If you find that your aircraft doesn't slow down quick enough at idle
throttle, perhaps you haven't provided enough engine power, so the
solver has given you an extremely low drag wing. You can play around
with engine power to tune your climb rate and your deceleration rates,
while still nailing your specified cruise numbers dead on.

All of YASim's computations are based on physical reality so as long as
your model inputs are in a realistic range (in terms of weight and
power) the performance will also be in a realistic range.

For as simple and clean as Andy's YASim code looks on the surface, it
really produces remarkable results. But again, like X-Plane, YASim is
only as good as it's built in assumptions, which advance you rapidly up
to some threshold, and beyond that it becomes difficult to get the model
any closer to reality.

I'm not a trained aerospace engineer, so I've been learning about
dynamics modeling through the FlightGear project. I find it all
incredibly fascinating. Each of these tools (JSBSim, X-Plane, YASim,
etc.) do very interesting things in very interesting ways. They each
have a certain beauty in their design and function. And they are all
very different with different strengths and weaknesses.

Curt.
--
Curtis Olson http://www.flightgear.org/~curt
HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/
FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org
Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Jon S. Berndt
2006-06-14 14:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by GWMobile
None of these are good for planes that haven't been stuck in a wind
tunnel and "precomputed"
Note: I didn't write the above. :-)

Jon
Oleksiy Frolov
2006-08-23 20:38:47 UTC
Permalink
Hello Jon

Hope I don't bother you too much.

FGAtmosphere.cpp line 268 should read

if ((vWindNED(1) != 0.0)||(vWindNED(2) != 0.0)) psiw = atan2( vWindNED(2),
vWindNED(1) );


otherwise strictly 90 and 270 dgr. winds are ignored.

I will come up soon with a code for setting the wind direction and speed
as a property of the atmosphere (if you don't mind)

Thank you

Best Regards,
Oleksiy

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
Jim Wilson
2006-06-14 16:40:16 UTC
Permalink
From: "Correu PelDavid"
Hi,
I'm studying theory control, and I'd like to play a bit with helicopter's capabilities.
I'd like to work on their model.
Flightgear works with YAsim, JSBsim and LaRCsim.
I've take a look at the LaRCsim manual. It says it uses "a set of equations of motion for a rigid-body aircraft in atmospheric and low-earth orbital flight".
In fact, using the equations of a 6D rigid-body is where I would have started if I were to choose without more info.
I wonder how the other models work.
For instance, I know the X-plane engine considers the aerodynamic planes. A totally different point of view from LaRCsim, but still accurate and working.
Where could I get some info on YAsim and JSBsim?
Could you draw me a shot of the main ideas?
It would be helpful if there was some documentation readily available in the source or base package that gave a nutshell description of each flight dynamics model library. This sort of question gets asked now and then.

JSBSim is fairly well documented. I'm not sure if Andy Ross is reading and will answer but I'll give a brief description of what I understand about YASim.

The parts of the code that I've worked on (doing very minor fixes) seem to be using a collection of well known (as in I could find some of them on the Internet) formulas for calculating things like lift, drag, thrust, prop rpm, etc. based on weight/mass and geometric data. Some of the calculations use very general data points about performance capabilities of the aircraft (e.g. stall speeds, cruise speeds) that are readily available for just about any model airplane.

You can get an idea of the scope of these calculations by examining some of the configuration files for the Aircraft that are currently using the YASim FDM. My unskilled assesment is that the YASim can reasonably simulate a wider range of Aircraft operations better than JSBSim but a lot depends on how much data you give JSBSim. In the end a JSBSim flight model is potentially much more faithful to the original aircraft given detailed enough data.

A very general distinction between using the two FDMS, in my view would be this: If you want to make a very accurate simulation of a single aircraft for which you have access to a fair amount of information on (especially wind tunnel tests) then JSBSim is definately the way to go. If you want to put together a reasonable simulation fairly quickly and/or the data you have is limited to general performance and geometric measurements, YASim is definately the way to go. The laws of diminishing returns seem to kick in a little quicker refining YASim model configurations, but you can get something quite reasonable with less. JSBSim models can be refined and tweaked and with greater attention and time can be made quite accurate. If neither of those senarios matches exactly what you want to do, then do a little more research and see what you can get for data, and how you wish to approach
your project.

At the moment it seems that YASim is further ahead in terms of Helicopter simulation. And I would even suggest that if one were interested in examining control (as opposed to flight dynamics) with maybe a variety of helicopter configurations, that YASim might be better suited anyway.

As you know from previous discussion, the helicopter simulation isn't all that accurate. In my opinion, the biggest problem (from a control perspective) is the lack of ground effect modeling. The effect of the collective control (rate of accent/decent) should be significantly influenced by distance from the ground during landing, takeoff (or any extended hovering close to the ground).

On the issues of transational lift modeling, I must confess it has been a while since I've experimented with the helicopter simulation so I cannot remember exactly what was wrong. The lift effect is basically working. Also I think the tendency for the aircraft to rotate goes away as you transition to ETL as it should. I do not think asymmetrical lift (the side where the blades are moving forward produces more lift) is modeled. Just to check for basic operation, you might try some of the obvious things like pitching the aircraft up and down to see if it climbs/falls and decelerates/accelerates in response. The accuracy of these effects might require a little improvement but if translational lift is working you should at least see something reasonable happening.

In my opinion the other issues, like the lack of autorotation, pale in importance compared to the omission of ground effect modeling. This is a critical element for fixed wing aircraft modeling, and it is just as or even more so for helicopters because the behavior of that cushion of air is so central to their operation.


Best,

Jim
--
Jim Wilson
Kelco Industries
PO Box 160
Milbridge, ME 04658
207-546-7989
Oleksiy Frolov
2006-07-04 22:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Hello

Loading the aircraft with addModelToPath=FALSE causing the external
autopilot xml description file load to fail, in the following string:

file = FDMExec->GetAircraftPath() + separator + FDMExec->GetModelName() +
separator + fname + ".xml";

which is obvious, cause it still tries to add the model to path.

Best Regards,
Oleksiy


Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
Jon S. Berndt
2006-07-05 00:05:32 UTC
Permalink
Oops!

I'll add this to the bug list. Shouldn't be too hard to fix. If you come up
with something, let me know.

Also, this should definitely be reported on the JSBSim list, too.

Jon

Go, DISCOVERY!
For sighting opportunities in your part of the world, see:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/sightings/index.html


Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
Oleksiy Frolov
2006-07-05 08:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Oops

I published it to the wrong list ..

Regards,
Oleksiy
Post by Jon S. Berndt
Oops!
I'll add this to the bug list. Shouldn't be too hard to fix. If you come up
with something, let me know.
Also, this should definitely be reported on the JSBSim list, too.
Jon
Go, DISCOVERY!
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/sightings/index.html
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-flightmodel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-flightmodel
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
Oleksiy Frolov
2006-08-22 10:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Hello Jon

First a bug :)


FGTurbine.cpp, line 110, SpinUp with fuel on should be possible,
although it would probably kill the engine

if (!Running /* && Cutoff*/ && Starter) {


Now the question. After starting both PW125B engines in C130 and trying to
taxi, the aircraft yaws strongly to the right (steering and rudder are
both centered). When gliding in the air without engines, the plane flies
well - no yaw.

Any idea ?

Aircraft config is attached.

Thank you

Best Regards,
Oleksiy
Post by Jim Wilson
From: "Correu PelDavid"
Hi,
I'm studying theory control, and I'd like to play a bit with
helicopter's capabilities.
I'd like to work on their model.
Flightgear works with YAsim, JSBsim and LaRCsim.
I've take a look at the LaRCsim manual. It says it uses "a set of
equations of motion for a rigid-body aircraft in atmospheric and
low-earth orbital flight".
In fact, using the equations of a 6D rigid-body is where I would have
started if I were to choose without more info.
I wonder how the other models work.
For instance, I know the X-plane engine considers the aerodynamic
planes. A totally different point of view from LaRCsim, but still
accurate and working.
Where could I get some info on YAsim and JSBsim?
Could you draw me a shot of the main ideas?
It would be helpful if there was some documentation readily available in
the source or base package that gave a nutshell description of each flight
dynamics model library. This sort of question gets asked now and then.
JSBSim is fairly well documented. I'm not sure if Andy Ross is reading
and will answer but I'll give a brief description of what I understand
about YASim.
The parts of the code that I've worked on (doing very minor fixes) seem to
be using a collection of well known (as in I could find some of them on
the Internet) formulas for calculating things like lift, drag, thrust,
prop rpm, etc. based on weight/mass and geometric data. Some of the
calculations use very general data points about performance capabilities
of the aircraft (e.g. stall speeds, cruise speeds) that are readily
available for just about any model airplane.
You can get an idea of the scope of these calculations by examining some
of the configuration files for the Aircraft that are currently using the
YASim FDM. My unskilled assesment is that the YASim can reasonably
simulate a wider range of Aircraft operations better than JSBSim but a lot
depends on how much data you give JSBSim. In the end a JSBSim flight
model is potentially much more faithful to the original aircraft given
detailed enough data.
A very general distinction between using the two FDMS, in my view would be
this: If you want to make a very accurate simulation of a single
aircraft for which you have access to a fair amount of information on
(especially wind tunnel tests) then JSBSim is definately the way to go.
If you want to put together a reasonable simulation fairly quickly and/or
the data you have is limited to general performance and geometric
measurements, YASim is definately the way to go. The laws of diminishing
returns seem to kick in a little quicker refining YASim model
configurations, but you can get something quite reasonable with less.
JSBSim models can be refined and tweaked and with greater attention and
time can be made quite accurate. If neither of those senarios matches
exactly what you want to do, then do a little more research and see what
you can get for data, and how you wish to approach your project.
At the moment it seems that YASim is further ahead in terms of Helicopter
simulation. And I would even suggest that if one were interested in
examining control (as opposed to flight dynamics) with maybe a variety of
helicopter configurations, that YASim might be better suited anyway.
As you know from previous discussion, the helicopter simulation isn't all
that accurate. In my opinion, the biggest problem (from a control
perspective) is the lack of ground effect modeling. The effect of the
collective control (rate of accent/decent) should be significantly
influenced by distance from the ground during landing, takeoff (or any
extended hovering close to the ground).
On the issues of transational lift modeling, I must confess it has been a
while since I've experimented with the helicopter simulation so I cannot
remember exactly what was wrong. The lift effect is basically working.
Also I think the tendency for the aircraft to rotate goes away as you
transition to ETL as it should. I do not think asymmetrical lift (the
side where the blades are moving forward produces more lift) is modeled.
Just to check for basic operation, you might try some of the obvious
things like pitching the aircraft up and down to see if it climbs/falls
and decelerates/accelerates in response. The accuracy of these effects
might require a little improvement but if translational lift is working
you should at least see something reasonable happening.
In my opinion the other issues, like the lack of autorotation, pale in
importance compared to the omission of ground effect modeling. This is a
critical element for fixed wing aircraft modeling, and it is just as or
even more so for helicopters because the behavior of that cushion of air
is so central to their operation.
Best,
Jim
--
Jim Wilson
Kelco Industries
PO Box 160
Milbridge, ME 04658
207-546-7989
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-flightmodel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-flightmodel
Jon S Berndt
2006-08-22 12:10:26 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:46:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Oleksiy Frolov
Hello Jon
First a bug :)
FGTurbine.cpp, line 110, SpinUp with fuel on should be possible,
although it would probably kill the engine
if (!Running /* && Cutoff*/ && Starter) {
Now the question. After starting both PW125B engines in C130 and trying to
taxi, the aircraft yaws strongly to the right (steering and rudder are
both centered). When gliding in the air without engines, the plane flies
well - no yaw.
Any idea ?
Aircraft config is attached.
Thank you
Best Regards,
Oleksiy
Greetings, Oleksiy:

An initial look at the file showed nothing wrong that I could see.
I'll try and take a closer look at this soon. This week I am in the
Rockies attending the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Conference.

Jon

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
Oleksiy Frolov
2006-08-22 13:24:38 UTC
Permalink
Hello Jon
Post by Jon S Berndt
An initial look at the file showed nothing wrong that I could see.
I'll try and take a closer look at this soon. This week I am in the
Rockies attending the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Conference.
Jon
Thank you. I was just wondering if something like this was experienced by
someone else. Will keep investigating on my side.

Btw. any plans to provide properties for setting and reading the brakes
state ?

Oleksiy
Post by Jon S Berndt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-flightmodel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-flightmodel
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
Jon S Berndt
2006-08-22 13:59:22 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 13:24:38 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Oleksiy Frolov
Hello Jon
Btw. any plans to provide properties for setting and reading the brakes
state ?
Oleksiy
That's now in CVS. I did that a couple of days ago.

Jon

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
Oleksiy Frolov
2006-08-22 16:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Really ?

Great. I almost feel like I can read the CVS with my brain at the
distance :)

Oleksiy
Post by Jon S Berndt
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 13:24:38 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Oleksiy Frolov
Hello Jon
Btw. any plans to provide properties for setting and reading the brakes
state ?
Oleksiy
That's now in CVS. I did that a couple of days ago.
Jon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-flightmodel mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-flightmodel
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
Jon S Berndt
2006-08-22 16:28:39 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:02:17 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Oleksiy Frolov
Really ?
Great. I almost feel like I can read the CVS with my brain at the
distance :)
Oleksiy
??

Sorry, I thought I had mentioned that. Can you get it? If not, let ,e
know. Also, let me know if it works for you, or if you have any
suggestions.

Jon

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
Loading...