Newsgroups Main » Newsgroups Directory » Science and Technology
Simulations ( sci.aeronautics.simulation )
From [email protected] Wed Feb 16 14:49:39 1994 Path: uunet!bounce-back From: [email protected] (Robert Dorsett) Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics,rec.aviation.simulators,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim,sci.engr,sci.engr.control,comp.simulation,sci.military,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: RFD: sci.aeronautics.simulation Followup-To: news.groups Date: 16 Feb 1994 14:30:47 -0500 Organization: cactus.org Lines: 79 Sender: [email protected] Approved: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net Xref: uunet news.announce.newgroups:4635 news.groups:95677 sci.aeronautics:6910 rec.aviation.simulators:4282 comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim:11906 sci.engr:8167 sci.engr.control:1682 comp.simulation:711 sci.military:34652 sci.aeronautics.airliners:1148 This is a formal request for discussion for a proposed new newsgroup: sci.aeronautics.simulation The newsgroup is proposed in response to a number of factors: - The high degree of interest in simulation technology expressed in a variety of newsgroups, including: sci.aeronautics, sci.military, rec.aviation, rec.aviation.simulators, and comp.simulation. While most of this interest is casual, the occasional technical post appears, in desperate search of a home. This traffic is characterized by aerospace applications, rather than the more general, academic material on comp.simulation. - The high degree of technical interest in simulation technology, recently, on sci.aeronautics. Which led the moderator, Mary Shafer, to suggest an RFD. - The fact that with modern microcomputers, the implementation of very thorough, advanced flight models are both feasible and widely accessible. Flight simulation technology is no longer the exclusive province of government researchers or well-funded corporations. Simulation courses are now part of the curricula of many undergraduate aerospace programs. Desktop simulation is an emerging issue in aerospace, with a wide range of applications, from aircraft design and evaluation to aircrew training. - The need for a forum to coordinate the standardization of data formats. Currently, most data formats are highly proprietary, and quite diverse. Standards are under consideration, and such a forum could serve as a sounding-board for RFC's and the like. - Lastly, the very interesting potential for hybrid technology to develop, with the combination of motivated people with CS backgrounds on the net, combined with the knowledge and expertise of the many people from the aerospace sector. Besides the specific topic--flight simulation--the group is also of interest to those with EE and ME backgrounds, seeking realistic, complex applications to test control theories. Therefore, the simulation newsgroup is intended to address the issues per- taining to atmospheric and low-orbital flight simulation. In particular, the gamut of implementation issues, including algorithms, flight modeling, parameter estimation, data gathering, and construction. The group will explicitly NOT be concerned with issues relating to the validation of retail software, nor the myriad user debates on retail features. Two newsgroups, rec.aviation.simulators and comp.sys.mac.ibm.pc. flight-sim provide adequate environments for this type of discussion. Rec.aviation.simulators, moreover, provides a home for discussions relating to the applicability of desktop simulators to general aviation flight training. Rather, the group is intended for those who wish to create simulators, both research and commercial, and is intended to address the unique questions that such implementors face. Hence the name choice of *simulation*, rather than *simulators*: the technique, rather than examples. How would this differ from sci.aeronautics? In general, the issue is one of modeling: aeronautics is a broad discipline, primarily concerned with physical processes. Simulation is concerned with the modeling of that reality, using both actual flight-test data *and* estimated data. For the amateur or poorly connected practitioner, the acquisition of such data and the use of such data provide particularly stiff challenges. Especially inasmuch as such data acquisition is not only concerned with aerodynamics, but can also pertain to a considerable number of environmental factors--thus the problem can be more complex than "regular" aerodynamics, where nature provides a very high-fidelity physical environment. Since, however, there is potential for overlap, the group is proposed as moderated, with myself as moderator. The responsibility of the moderator would be to work with the moderators of sci.aero and sci.aero.airliners, and mainly keep things "on course," filtering out non-relevant messages and keep- ing the flames to a minimum. The discussion period will last for 30 days. At the end of this period, depending upon response, a formal charter will be framed and a call-for-votes issued. -- Robert Dorsett [email protected] ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd From [email protected] Wed May 11 15:01:45 1994 Path: uunet!bounce-back From: [email protected] (Robert Dorsett) Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics,rec.aviation.simulators,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim,sci.engr,sci.engr.control,comp.simulation,sci.military,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: 2nd RFD: sci.aeronautics.simulation moderated Followup-To: news.groups Date: 9 May 1994 19:57:10 -0400 Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Lines: 87 Sender: [email protected] Approved: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net Xref: uunet news.announce.newgroups:5067 news.groups:103137 sci.aeronautics:7143 rec.aviation.simulators:5128 comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim:16509 sci.engr:9118 sci.engr.control:2107 comp.simulation:973 sci.military:37082 sci.aeronautics.airliners:1406 This is a repeat RFD for sci.aeronautics.simulation. The original RFD was issued in mid-February. User comments were uniformly positive. However, an unstable machine and a dirty phone line precluded my pursuing the vote: those problems have been rectified. The following is an exact repeat of the original RFD. With David Lawrence's approval, this RFD period will last ten days; it is mainly a "refresher." ------------------------------ The newsgroup is proposed in response to a number of factors: - The high degree of interest in simulation technology expressed in a variety of newsgroups, including: sci.aeronautics, sci.military, rec.aviation, rec.aviation.simulators, and comp.simulation. While most of this interest is casual, the occasional technical post appears, in desperate search of a home. This traffic is characterized by aerospace applications, rather than the more general, academic material on comp.simulation. - The high degree of technical interest in simulation technology, recently, on sci.aeronautics. Which led the moderator, Mary Shafer, to suggest an RFD. - The fact that with modern microcomputers, the implementation of very thorough, advanced flight models are both feasible and widely accessible. Flight simulation technology is no longer the exclusive province of government researchers or well-funded corporations. Simulation courses are now part of the curricula of many undergraduate aerospace programs. Desktop simulation is an emerging issue in aerospace, with a wide range of applications, from aircraft design and evaluation to aircrew training. - The need for a forum to coordinate the standardization of data formats. Currently, most data formats are highly proprietary, and quite diverse. Standards are under consideration, and such a forum could serve as a sounding-board for RFC's and the like. - Lastly, the very interesting potential for hybrid technology to develop, with the combination of motivated people with CS backgrounds on the net, combined with the knowledge and expertise of the many people from the aerospace sector. Besides the specific topic--flight simulation--the group is also of interest to those with EE and ME backgrounds, seeking realistic, complex applications to test control theories. Therefore, the simulation newsgroup is intended to address the issues per- taining to atmospheric and low-orbital flight simulation. In particular, the gamut of implementation issues, including algorithms, flight modeling, parameter estimation, data gathering, and construction. The group will explicitly NOT be concerned with issues relating to the validation of retail software, nor the myriad user debates on retail features. Two newsgroups, rec.aviation.simulators and comp.sys.ibm.pc. flight-sim provide adequate environments for this type of discussion. Rec.aviation.simulators, moreover, provides a home for discussions relating to the applicability of desktop simulators to general aviation flight training. Rather, the group is intended for those who wish to create simulators, both research and commercial, and is intended to address the unique questions that such implementors face. Hence the name choice of *simulation*, rather than *simulators*: the technique, rather than examples. How would this differ from sci.aeronautics? In general, the issue is one of modeling: aeronautics is a broad discipline, primarily concerned with physical processes. Simulation is concerned with the modeling of that reality, using both actual flight-test data *and* estimated data. For the amateur or poorly connected practitioner, the acquisition of such data and the use of such data provide particularly stiff challenges. Especially inasmuch as such data acquisition is not only concerned with aerodynamics, but can also pertain to a considerable number of environmental factors--thus the problem can be more complex than "regular" aerodynamics, where nature provides a very high-fidelity physical environment. Since, however, there is potential for overlap, the group is proposed as moderated, with myself as moderator. The responsibility of the moderator would be to work with the moderators of sci.aero and sci.aero.airliners, and mainly keep things "on course," filtering out non-relevant messages and keep- ing the flames to a minimum. The discussion period will last for 10 days. At the end of this period, depending upon response, a formal charter will be framed and a call-for-votes issued. -- Robert Dorsett [email protected] From [email protected] (RonDippold) Thu Jun 9 18:05:55 1994 Path: uunet!bounce-back From: [email protected] (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.aeronautics,rec.aviation.simulators,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim,sci.engr,sci.engr.control,comp.simulation,sci.military,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: CFV: sci.aeronautics.simulation moderated Followup-To: poster Date: 8 Jun 1994 17:16:09 -0400 Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers Lines: 92 Sender: [email protected] Approved: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Expires: 30 Jun 1994 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <[email protected]> References: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] (Ron Dippold Voting Alias) NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net Xref: uunet news.announce.newgroups:5192 news.groups:105796 sci.aeronautics:7204 rec.aviation.simulators:5406 comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim:18633 sci.engr:9429 sci.engr.control:2334 comp.simulation:1069 sci.military:37794 sci.aeronautics.airliners:1533 FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2) moderated group sci.aeronautics.simulation Newsgroups line: sci.aeronautics.simulation Aerospace simulation technology. (Moderated) Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 29 Jun 1994. This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. For voting questions only contact [email protected] For questions about the proposed group contact Robert Dorsett <[email protected]>. CHARTER A moderated discussion group dealing with the implementation of flight and systems models on computers. This includes, but is not restricted to: - the definition of such models - acquisition and modeling of flight parameters - design and implementation of onboard systems models - design and implementation of powerplant models - standardization of commonly required data, such as flight parameter databases, navaid databases, etc. - design of cab-based implementations of flight simulators The newsgroup will be moderated by Robert Dorsett, [email protected] The contact address will be [email protected], requests to [email protected] Notes ----- There is a close relationship between this group and sci.aeronautics: however, simulation requires more than simply implementing physical equations, and this group will strive to address the specific issues that implementors must face. The group is offered as moderated to keep it on track, and to try to avoid thread mutation into topics that might belong on other groups. It should also help stop commercial direct-marketers, who post to inappropriate groups, selling everything >from hand cream to visa applications. I will work in concert with the moderators of sci.aeronautics (Mary Shafer) and sci.aeronautics.airliners (Karl Swartz) to control the topical focus of relevant articles. What the group is not about --------------------------- - Generic simulation issues (handled by comp.simulation) - Validating games (rec.aviation.simulators, comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim) - Using flight games History of the proposal ----------------------- The RFD was issued in early February, after the moderator of sci.aeronautics noted the high incidence of posts dealing with simulation issues. I had also noticed a number of highly technical queries appearing on rec.aviation.simulators, without any follow-ups. The RFD produced a large number of very positive responses from people active in all segments of the industry, ranging from the airframe manufacturers to the simulator manufacturers to aerospace departments to government researchers to game designers. Due to a pesky phone line, the vote was delayed; after the problems were fixed, a second RFD was issued in May, which similarly had a good response. HOW TO VOTE Send MAIL to: [email protected] Just Replying should work if you are not reading this on a mailing list. Your mail message should contain one of the following statements: I vote YES on sci.aeronautics.simulation I vote NO on sci.aeronautics.simulation You may also ABSTAIN in place of YES/NO - this will not affect the outcome. Anything else may be rejected by the automatic vote counting program. The votetaker will respond to your received ballots with a personal acknowledge- ment by mail - if you do not receive one within several days, try again. It's your responsibility to make sure your vote is registered correctly. One vote counted per person, no more than one per account. Addresses and votes of all voters will be published in the final voting results list. From [email protected] (RonDippold) Tue Jul 12 15:05:40 1994 Path: uunet!bounce-back From: [email protected] (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.aeronautics,rec.aviation.simulators,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim,sci.engr,sci.engr.control,comp.simulation,sci.military,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: RESULT: sci.aeronautics.simulation moderated passes 193:11 Supersedes: <[email protected]> Followup-To: news.groups Date: 11 Jul 1994 23:51:44 -0400 Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers Lines: 304 Sender: [email protected] Approved: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net Xref: uunet news.announce.newgroups:5338 news.groups:108174 sci.aeronautics:7276 rec.aviation.simulators:5757 comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim:21243 sci.engr:9809 sci.engr.control:2524 comp.simulation:1149 sci.military:38780 sci.aeronautics.airliners:1661 RESULT moderated group sci.aeronautics.simulation passes 193:11 There were 193 YES votes and 11 NO votes, for a total of 204 valid votes. There were 2 abstains and 1 invalid ballot. For group passage, YES votes must be at least 2/3 of all valid (YES and NO) votes. There also must be at least 100 more YES votes than NO votes. There is a five day discussion period after these results are posted. If no serious allegations of voting irregularities are raised, the moderator of news.announce.newgroups will create the group shortly thereafter. Newsgroups line: sci.aeronautics.simulation Aerospace simulation technology. (Moderated) This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. For voting questions only contact [email protected] For questions about the proposed group contact Robert Dorsett <[email protected]>. CHARTER A moderated discussion group dealing with the implementation of flight and systems models on computers. This includes, but is not restricted to: - the definition of such models - acquisition and modeling of flight parameters - design and implementation of onboard systems models - design and implementation of powerplant models - standardization of commonly required data, such as flight parameter databases, navaid databases, etc. - design of cab-based implementations of flight simulators The newsgroup will be moderated by Robert Dorsett, [email protected] The contact address will be [email protected], requests to [email protected] Notes ----- There is a close relationship between this group and sci.aeronautics: however, simulation requires more than simply implementing physical equations, and this group will strive to address the specific issues that implementors must face. The group is offered as moderated to keep it on track, and to try to avoid thread mutation into topics that might belong on other groups. It should also help stop commercial direct-marketers, who post to inappropriate groups, selling everything >from hand cream to visa applications. I will work in concert with the moderators of sci.aeronautics (Mary Shafer) and sci.aeronautics.airliners (Karl Swartz) to control the topical focus of relevant articles. What the group is not about --------------------------- - Generic simulation issues (handled by comp.simulation) - Validating games (rec.aviation.simulators, comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim) - Using flight games History of the proposal ----------------------- The RFD was issued in early February, after the moderator of sci.aeronautics noted the high incidence of posts dealing with simulation issues. I had also noticed a number of highly technical queries appearing on rec.aviation.simulators, without any follow-ups. The RFD produced a large number of very positive responses from people active in all segments of the industry, ranging from the airframe manufacturers to the simulator manufacturers to aerospace departments to government researchers to game designers. Due to a pesky phone line, the vote was delayed; after the problems were fixed, a second RFD was issued in May, which similarly had a good response. sci.aeronautics.simulation Final Vote Ack Voted Yes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [email protected] Francois Choquette [email protected] [email protected] Alan B. Chamberlin [email protected] [email protected] Bahadir Acuner [email protected] F. P. Adams, Jr. [email protected] Allan Plumb [email protected] JESUS EUGENIO SANCHEZ PENA [email protected] [email protected] Andy Latto [email protected] Stefan Antersberger [email protected] Anandeep S Pannu [email protected] Jim Ault [email protected] Beau Binder [email protected] Barry Jones [email protected] [email protected] Peter Berschick [email protected] Bruce E. Zunser [email protected] arthur blair [email protected] Matthew W. Blake [email protected] Greg Boes [email protected] Bernd-Burkhard Borys [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Bryan Kaplan [email protected] Dick Buenneke [email protected] Thomas J Bunce [email protected] [email protected] Robert A. Carter [email protected] Chuck Royalty [email protected] Brian Cherkas [email protected] Chris 'No men..period\!' Jackson [email protected] Clive Cunningham [email protected] Craig Kelley [email protected] Craig Wanke [email protected] Kevin Cunningham [email protected] David A. Avery [email protected] Dan Newman [email protected] Dan Smith [email protected] [email protected] Dave Goodman [email protected] [email protected] David R. Catapang [email protected] Harry Rockefeller [email protected] Keith Blanchette 515 MIS [email protected] Mike Bates [email protected] Daniel Morales L. [email protected] Dean Domikulic [email protected] Bruce Jackson [email protected] Ron Graham [email protected] Ed Falk [email protected] Ethan Brodsky [email protected] Eric Thompson [email protected] Eugene N. Miya [email protected] Fred D. Sturtevant [email protected] MichaelFeary [email protected] [email protected] matthew david fine [email protected] [email protected] Dave Forrest [email protected] Michael Frament [email protected] Gilbert Freitag [email protected] Robin Friedrich [email protected] Sean P. Ryan [email protected] Kenneth Funk [email protected] GJ Page [email protected] Graham Robbins [email protected] Galanis, George [email protected] Dave Shariff Yadallee [email protected] Glenn E. Kohr [email protected] EuGene epetai-Tramaglino [email protected] Jerry Gerstmann [email protected] Gary Cole [email protected] Benito Graniela [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Guru Prasad [email protected] Guy Schiavone [email protected] James Harvey [email protected] Henry A Worth [email protected] Peter Herrmann [email protected] Henning Holtschneider [email protected] Jim Hiott [email protected] Hitendra Desai [email protected] Horst Salzwedel [email protected] Hitesh Parikh [email protected] Hubert Vroomen [email protected] Ivan Soleimanipour [email protected] Jacob A. Houck [email protected] Jeffrey M Maddalon [email protected] [email protected] Joseph Batman [email protected] Jock Robert Ian Christie [email protected] John C Sager [email protected] Angelo Catovic [email protected] John E. Mendenhall [email protected] Joseph Fortt [email protected] Jeffrey N. Fritz [email protected] John Maca [email protected] Joel Bordeneuve [email protected] John Hascall [email protected] [email protected] Jim Takats [email protected] Jari Vilenius [email protected] James Yates [email protected] Suresh K. Kannan [email protected] Karim Samir [email protected] Karsten Martin [email protected] Karl Swartz [email protected] Karsten Kreher (4D) [email protected] David Kuechenmeister [email protected] Kurt "Marvin" Stadler [email protected] Martin Schroeder [email protected] Lachlan Cranswick [email protected] Laura Gillespie [email protected] Ronald Legere [email protected] Louis Bolduc [email protected] Lutz Jarbot [email protected] IanMaclure [email protected] [email protected] Michael Bolender [email protected] Marcus O. McElroy [email protected] Kenneth McMurtrie [email protected] Richard Merrill [email protected] [email protected] Miika Asunta [email protected] Mike Young [email protected] Mike Bloom [email protected] STEVEDORE [email protected] Meyer Nahon [email protected] Mark R. Kennedy [email protected] [email protected] Brian Thomas [email protected] Nickolas E. Hein [email protected] [email protected] Neil Morris [email protected] Nelson Bridwell [email protected] Nils Nieuwejaar [email protected] [email protected] William T. Overton [email protected] Perry Geib [email protected] phil reed [email protected] Padraig Houlahan [email protected] Palmer,David,DR [email protected] L. Merrill Palmer [email protected] Jean-Francois Panisset [email protected] Paul Robinson [email protected] Philip D Bridges [email protected] Pat Pekinpaugh [email protected] [email protected] Pablo A. Iglesias [email protected] Olivier PLAUT [email protected] Tomasz Plewa [email protected] Pete Mellor [email protected] Peter Polson p[email protected] Philip Ryan [email protected] Michael J. Quinn [email protected] R. Marshall Smith [email protected] Riley Rainey [email protected] R. Brian dos Santos [email protected] Robert Dorsett [email protected] Dick Harrigill [email protected] Richard H. Miller [email protected] Rob Griffiths [email protected] Bob Wittick [email protected] THE PRINCE [email protected] Mazen Saghir [email protected] [email protected] H.G.Pagendarm [email protected] Steve Brown [email protected] Steve Derry [email protected] Paulo F. Sedrez [email protected] Simpkin, Graeme [email protected] Sinan Karahan [email protected] singh daljeet [email protected] Shankar Khadye [email protected] Sung-Soo Kim [email protected] stuart butts/taai/75033 [email protected] David Soto [email protected] Steve Hurt [email protected] Terry Yingling [email protected] Timo Tapio Hakulinen [email protected] [email protected] Timothy Aanerud [email protected] Thomas Netter [email protected] Trey Arthur [email protected] Triebelhorn Jeffrey [email protected] Geoffroy VILLE [email protected] Stephen Fenwick [email protected] Robyn M. Watts [email protected] Erik Werner [email protected] Werner Uhrig [email protected] wgreen Voted No ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [email protected] Andreas Polzer [email protected] Ajit Balakrishna [ChemE mg15302] [email protected] Jan Brittenson [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] John R. MacWilliamson [email protected] Julian Macassey [email protected] [email protected] Dwight Brown [email protected] STella Abstained ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [email protected] Anita Kilgour [email protected] Maxime Taksar KC6ZPS Votes in error ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [email protected] Jesse William Leo Stuart ! No vote statement in message
USENET FACT: Big-8
BIG-8 hierarchies are the 8 traditional top hierarchies of the Usenet. See the following page for more