> > Oh, I forgot to add this: modeling "realism" and "malfunction" code isn't > really too bad. This feature specifically won't require much in the way of > rework or anything even if we wait. I've had this in mind for some time (I > have modeled malf.s for shuttle training simulators, USAF, NASA, etc. so > this is very familiar territory). To model malfunctions properly, however, > the correct behaviour has to first be there.
So you can appreciate the redundancy ( there's that word again! ) that goes into a complex system and the interaction and possible configuration/states that might occur given a set of failures. > In working on the glass displays, I'm seeing a lot of that in terms of the various display modes and configurations each panel can have depending on the flight segment and crew selected options, and haven't even begun to consider abnormal operations or anamolies. JW _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
