Curtis L. Olson wrote: > Andy Ross wrote: > > Actually, there needs to be a way to disambiguate the case where p1 > > is actually below ground, too. > > It shouldn't be too hard to test that the resulting contact point is > between p1 and p2 ...
Yeah, that's one way to do it. But, as I specified it, there isn't any way to distinguish the case where p1 is below ground and p2 is above, with an intersection point of "I" (which would represent a crashed and inverted aircraft), and the inverse case where I is the same, but p2 is below ground and p1 above (which is an airplane sitting on its gear normally). It's not a big deal, really. I just discovered the ambiguity as I was finishing the note and put that final bit in so someone didn't call me on it. :) 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
