On Friday 15 March 2002 02:20 pm, you wrote: > Michael Selig writes: > > Thanks for all the input on this. It helped get us going. The > > properties structure is pretty neat! > > Thanks. > > > If few questions (probably too many): > > > > [1] Does it sense to define and set our properties inside LaRCsim.cxx > > and not further down in the uiuc_ code? Does it matter? I can > > certainly envision cases where we will want to set properties inside our > > uiuc_ code. > > > > If we do add the myriad properties for many aircraft configuration > > types to LaRCsim.cxx it means adding lots of code I think. > > UIUC is an unusual case, since it is an FDM within an FDM. I'm not > sure how you should work out sharing properties between UIUC and > LaRCsim proper, but I think that your top-level UIUC code is probably > a good place for most of this. > > > [2] Where should we put the sound files. Right now the files are in > > ~fbfsbase/Sounds. But different aircraft will have different > > sounds. Should these sound files go in the respective > > ~fgfsbase/Aircraft directories? > > That's a question for John Check, who is working hard to impose more > order on the sometimes chaotic base package. > <snip> > [3] The properties structure is pretty general. It seems like it > > would be pretty easy to trample over someone else's property > > definitions and/or make poor/improper usage of them? Is there a > > standard list of reserved properties? > > So far, we've been managing everything ad-hoc (as with our code -- we > have no style guide or naming conventions there either, and have had > many collisions, especially with macros). We've been considering > making a subtree for each FDM where it can stick whatever it internal > information wants, i.e. > > /fdm/yasim > /fdm/larcsim > /fdm/jsbsim > /fdm/uiuc >
Curt had asked me a little while back what I thought about moving the FDM tree under Aircraft. Either scheme works for me. I think moving the FDM config is a good idea and fits nicely with the overall FGFS philosophy. TTYL John > JSBSim might put its coefficients there, for example, and YASim might > put the forces acting on each lifting surface. > > Nothing's been finalized, but I haven't heard any screaming > objections. When you want to put information into one of the existing > subtrees like /surface-positions or /engines, it would probably be a > good idea to post a short message to see if the other FDM maintainers > are willing to go along. > > > All the best, > > > David _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
