|
Out of curiosity, why did you choose Msys2 rather than RailsInstaller?[^]
I've been using RailsInstaller for over a year now and have never had problems with it.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
A more unixy environment, actually. Also has a ton of other useful packages for development.
Getting information off the Internet is like taking a drink from a fire hydrant.
- Mitchell Kapor
|
|
|
|
|
Can't say I've tried RailsInstaller.
I have used both rb.env and rvm.
RVM is home heavy weight, but it's the reigning champion.
rb.env is coming up fast though.
|
|
|
|
|
I ended up hitting a bunch of errors with Msys2, so I am now just going to use RubyInstaller (2.0.0-p353) and install Rails on that. I am using RubyMine as the IDE (it is good).
Getting information off the Internet is like taking a drink from a fire hydrant.
- Mitchell Kapor
|
|
|
|
|
Brisingr Aerowing wrote: so I am now just going to use RubyInstaller (2.0.0-p353) and install Rails on that.
It has Rails already pre-installed.
Brisingr Aerowing wrote: I am using RubyMine as the IDE (it is good).
Indeed it is!
Good luck, let me know if you run into any problems.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
RubyInstaller, not RailsInstaller. Last time I looked, RailsInstaller was out of date (I like to use the latest stuff when I can)
Getting information off the Internet is like taking a drink from a fire hydrant.
- Mitchell Kapor
|
|
|
|
|
Brisingr Aerowing wrote: RubyInstaller, not RailsInstaller.
Ah, my bad.
Yes, RubyInstaller isn't up to version 2 of Ruby and Rails yet, but for my purposes, neither is my client's code, and at least in Rails, there are some significant breaking changes.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Give a try to a vagrant box. There is one ready for RoR development here[^].
It runs a small linux server on a virtual box and forwards all needed ports to your computer, so you can keep your browser, your text editor (are you using Sublime?), git and so on on your machine.
It is tricky to compile some gems on Windows, so it is much better to have a linux environment to handle it all.
Hope this helped 
|
|
|
|
|
'.. I can post a link to the system I set up here..'
Yes, and TIA
sss-ed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sold
Just need a check big enough to buy it, and another big enough to drop off at Hennessey[^] and say "go nuts".
|
|
|
|
|
Might be a tad expensive...1200HP??? Wow, that will get you REAL fast from gas station to gas station.
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty picture.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
This[^] is a Blade MCPX. Don't let its size and plain appearance fool you. It's a real little helicopter that can take a few crashes and is therefore ideal for learning how to fly.
But it's really not much to look at. Now, what if I remove everything that's not needed and install the rest in a more interesting hull? One like this.[^] Yes, I know that's a regular model kit. We will have to make some modifications, but it could work. At least should a Huey at 1:48 scale have enough room to install everything and it looks promising.[^]
And this[^] is how far I got today: The hull from the model kit is glued together and primed, but not yet sanded. The Blade's chassis has been installed inside and fits, but I had to cut out parts of the roof to make room for the larger swashplate. I had to break the tail boom assembly when I took it off. The tail motor is now installed in the model, but the wires still have to be routed to the front and again attached to the circuit board.
Provided I get the tail motor functional again, find a good place for the battery and manage to get it trimmed, then it may actually fly. How are my odds?
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
I hold an A-7 computer expert classification, Commodore. I'm well acquainted with Dr. Daystrom's theories and discoveries. The basic design of all our ship's computers are JavaScript.
modified 11-Jan-14 17:22pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Odds of it flying? Not great. It'll get into the air, but with the body you've added you may have significantly changed the CG of the model. Even though they are cool little helicopters, they can't really take much of a change in CG (try taping a dime to one near the nose or tail). You may need to add weight to some part to get it to hover. If you managed to get the CG right then you will have to tune it so it doesn't spin, but most have a little knob on the controller for that. That's because of the additional side surface area near the tail rotor can be counter productive (see below, same reason).
Another problem is that it may take significantly more throttle to lift off. You've added a lot of surface area under the rotor that isn't effective (actually its counter-productive), the problem is that the force of the blades pushing air down on top of the new body adds, essentially, weight. You're basically decreasing the effective rotor area while increasing weight.
It'll be interesting to see how it flies, definitely come back and tell us!
|
|
|
|
|
I already learned the hard way what happens when the tail or the nose are too heavy. Taping a coin to the nose or the tail as needed will certainly be required before flying.
Spinning could be a lesser problem. Yesterday I spent some time to find a model with a similar spacing between the rotors and enough space to install everything at a given scale. My first choice would have been a Mi-24 at 1:72. The distance between the rotors would have been ideal, but in the front the model would have been far too narrow.
My greatest worry also is that the motor may not be strong enough. Still, the model kit was not very expensive and I can always put the MCPX back together if it does not work at all. But I don't give up that easily. It took me a while, but I have taken apart and modified my Blade 130X until that tail wagging finally was gone.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
I hold an A-7 computer expert classification, Commodore. I'm well acquainted with Dr. Daystrom's theories and discoveries. The basic design of all our ship's computers are JavaScript.
|
|
|
|
|
I say your odds are terrific! Congratulations on the idea and the workmanship.
I love RC helis.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Small helis are great. They cost a fraction of the bigger ones, are easier to adjust and can take some punishment before breaking. Ideal for beginners who will certainly have a few crashes. Later they are still fun to fly because you don't need much room and can fly any time you feel like it.
Anyway, I spent some time this evening building and painting the cockpit, but it looks like it will have to stay out. I had to loosen the circuit board and tilt it, otherwise it would not allow me to put on the roof. That leaves no room for the cockpit. The roof will not be glued on. Instead I want to try to use the same kind of small magnets to hold it like a regular canopy. This way I can always take it off to make repairs or change the battery. Of course this will not work as long as the circuit board still pushes against the roof.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
I hold an A-7 computer expert classification, Commodore. I'm well acquainted with Dr. Daystrom's theories and discoveries. The basic design of all our ship's computers are JavaScript.
|
|
|
|
|
Make sure that the vertical distance from the main rotor to the tail rotor is correct, or it won't fly right:
---------------------@--------------------- ---
| | This distance must be correct
--@-- ___|__________ ---
\ / | \
\_____________________/ \
\____________________________________//
| |
__|___________|/
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I just had a brief test flight. The tail rotor was absolutely stable and I did not even need to adjust the trimming. But most importantly: It works!
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
I hold an A-7 computer expert classification, Commodore. I'm well acquainted with Dr. Daystrom's theories and discoveries. The basic design of all our ship's computers are JavaScript.
modified 12-Jan-14 7:52am.
|
|
|
|
|
Well done!
Never underestimate the power of stupid things in large numbers
--- Serious Sam
|
|
|
|
|
Congrats! 
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
That's at least two of us Lounge users with the same hobby then, don't tell the wife but I have sunk quite a few quid into my Helicopters and Aeroplanes over the years.
Looking forward to trying out my new DX9 when I have unwrapped it later tonight too.
|
|
|
|
|
More by accident, I quit smoking about a year ago. I then started with helis and have spent less than I would have for cigarettes. But yes, I still stick to the small helis because they can take a beating and don't cost much to repair.
I have these helis:
Blade Nano CPX (great trainer, but not good outside)
Blade 130x, at the moment my favorite (with full rotor and rear tuning)
Blade SR, got it as a wreck at Ebay and practiced repairing and adjusting on it.
Blade 450 3D, banged it up at the first flight and now have it in good repair again.
And now the little mCPX/Huey
Please let me know what you think of the DX9. At the moment my DX6i is sufficient, but one day I will need something better.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
I hold an A-7 computer expert classification, Commodore. I'm well acquainted with Dr. Daystrom's theories and discoveries. The basic design of all our ship's computers are JavaScript.
|
|
|
|
|
That's a good selection you have there, the 130x gets good reviews, I have never flown one though. I have too many to list. A mixture of fixed and rotary wing models. I have a couple of Blade helicopters too, the MSR and MCPx BL.
Back in the 80's when Helicopters were very expensive and difficult to fly, I got a glow trainer but gave up mainly due to the long distance traveling to get to a good club. About 6 years ago I started again with an ESky Belt CP. The ESky helicopter is now long gone but I have been in the hobby since then. The local club field is only around 800m from home too.
I now teach others to fly at my local club, hence one reason for DX9 upgrade. The DX9 has a wireless buddy feature that will be useful when teaching other Spektrum users. I also filled up all the 30 slots on my old transmitter, this one is unlimited with an SD card.
The other good features over my old JR DSX9 are backlit display, good for night flying and also I will be playing around with the Telemetry stuff on a glider I have. the voice feature works well with the telemetry for reading voltages, temps and altitudes too.
I still haven't flown anything with it but it all seems to work OK.
Hoping for some decent weather now. Wishing all your landings safe ones!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
