> I proposed that as an example, but you need to design in the ability for > expansion now or you might wind up ripping out a lot of code later. IMHO you > need to start worrying about weight and balance now, before some of the > other items on the table. I don't see anything to account for # of pax and > crew, cargo/luggage, fuel load, and tips.
Fuel load, tanks, fuel drain, etc. are accounted for. Additional weighted objects are not a problem. Seriously, the class heirarchy and design of JSBSim allows for expansion already quite well. We are always open to suggestions, which is one reason the design we have is so open. > Modeling more complex systems is not a geometric progression, it may not > even be exponential, NP? Sorry, I'm preaching to the choir. Given the design we have evolved to this point, modeling more complex systems really ought to be fairly painless. Jon _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
