Jon S. Berndt wrote: > David Megginson wrote: > > Regarding this paragraph, > > > > > Recently, Andrew Ross contributed another flight model called > > > YASim for Yet another simulator. At present, it sports another > > > Cessna 172, a Cessna 182 and a Boeing 747. This one is based on > > > geometry information rather than aerodynamic > > > coefficients. Although it is not that sophisticated like > > > e.g. JSBSim it is intended to be "very somple to use" and lets > > > you fly many differnet airplanes. > > > > YASim also includes a fairly good DC-3 model, along with a 747, > > Harrier, and A4. > > "somple" is misspelled. I also would suggest that it's not really > accurate or fair to say that it is not as sophisticated as JSBSim - > it's just a different approach and appears sophisticated in its own > right - though I have not reviewed the code that much. Whatever you > guys want to do ...
And there's no 182 modelled; it's a Turbo 310. As regards the sophistication comment, I won't complain. I'm happy to wait until more of it is finished before I make my move for user mindshare. Indeed, parts of the code are really quite sophisticated; I'm especially proud of the numerics work -- the aircraft "solver" and the runtime integrator. It's intended to be applicable to a problem area that's slightly different from JSBSim, and IMHO more aligned with what a desktop flight simulator user wants. Whereas JSBSim relies on the work of aero engineers to measure and characterize the performance of real world planes to recreate that behavior in the simulator, YASim tries only to model "plausible" behavior well for any aircraft you throw at it. YASim planes, in theory anyway, won't necessary match the precise real-world numbers of a real-world plane. But they will, however, be essentially guaranteed to fly like a real plane. Think of it this way: a YASim aircraft will be as close to the real airplane as the real one is to any other aircraft of the same general class. That's good enough for me. And in a lot of situations (military aircraft in particular), this is as good as we're going to get anyway. There isn't any public performance data for these beasts. Oh, and a pedantic comment about the text: the use of the latin "e.g." in the middle of English sentences is frowned upon as a matter of style. In almost all cases, the colloquial "for example" will work better. You do see it occasionally inside parentheses (e.g. this one), but because the latin form is no longer used in the spoken language it should generally not appear in the middle of otherwise-speakable prose. The same is true for the similar abbreviation "i.e.", although their cousin "etc." _is_ still part of the spoken language and is perfectly acceptable in the middle of text. Isn't this language great? :) Andy -- Andrew J. Ross NextBus Information Systems Senior Software Engineer Emeryville, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nextbus.com "Men go crazy in conflagrations. They only get better one by one." - Sting (misquoted) _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
