> > > > Please note that there is a difference between fgfs's internal > > > > representation of wind, and the way it is set by the user. As an > > > > engineer, I am partial to using 'to' vectors internally. > > > Yup, that is more mathematically correct.
There is nothing mathematical about the wind vector convention; it's not as if we're actually modelling the wind as a particle field. A pressure sensor that is exposed to the "wind" and pointed in the direction specified as the "wind direction" will indicate a pressure above ambient. When pointed in the opposite direction, i.e. the direction that the air is travelling towards, the sensor will report the same as for the directions at right angles, namely no increase. Therefore, I could argue that the "pilot viewpoint" makes a whole lot more sense, for use in the context of aerodynamic modelling. Trying to standardize here is about as pointless as making the whole simulator use SI units exclusively for _every_ numeric value. > > IMHO, I think the way JSBSim does it is more consistent from an > > EOM/weather/smulation POV. However, perhaps we can account for the > > difference in the FGInterface-derived class for the specific FDM? Purely on principle, I think it is more important to let each FDM subsystem use whatever conventions that its authors believe will make for a consistent and easy to maintain codebase. We want them to work! Any sign (or axis) mismatches can be dealt with in the interface class. > I'd be happier if we kept it as is. Wouldn't be the first time > engineers have traded correctness for pragmatism. Yes. That's been suggested as the differentiator between engineers and scientists and formed the basis for many many jokes at each others' expense. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
