On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:55:49 -0800 Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What part of "assuming a flat ground" is not getting across? :) I was trying to figure out where you got that 34% error from. >If you are willing to assume a flat ground, then you already *have* a >valid and workable model that requires no modifications whatsoever. >Don't bother with the per-gear stuff, you neither need it nor want it. It's been mentioned here several times in this thread already. If the runway is not perfectly level, the aircraft will be tilted (in real life). 1) If we model the gear given a per-gear elevation, we get a lot of effects for free - including slanted runways. The 3D model with then rest on it correctly. Jon _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
