On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:47:03 -0000 "Jim Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jon's concern is quite valid, but there are problems. As I work through
these concepts in my mind, I can see that although the current method sounds
more complicated for the 3D animator, having to deal with the real values
could be a lot worse (at least with the current architecture).
For simple aerosurface movements I fail to see how it could be anything but easier. For more difficult cases, whether you are scaling an angle or a normalized value, it should be similar.
It might be useful for someone to work through the values as that would be
report for the various stages of deployment on a 747 flap system. As Richard
message suggests here the detail required by the 3D modeler is sometimes quite
a bit more than what is required by the FDM.
Also, ask yourself the question, does the normalized value of, say, 0.5 really correspond to 30 degrees of flaps when the total range is 0 to 60?
Also, to have some objects reported normalized and other objects reported
actual would be too confusing...even if the distinctions and reasons were
logically sensible. In the long run we'll benefit the most from consistency
even if it means more work at the FDM interface.
Not sure I agree here. It should not be a big deal to have two subclasses, one to handle normalized and one to handle not normalized.
It's not such a big deal to me except in that I don't want the FDM to be dealing with things it does not need to be dealing with - I want to work towards reducing "excess baggage" from JSBSim proper. I'd be content with moving normalization into the interface class.
Jon
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
