> You know, the code to do both what you want and what Andy wants is > already done and like Norman said, has been in place for about a year > now.
Holy! ... Man, you guys are *fast*. I guess I missed that somewhere along the way in months past. Or, it could be that we got the gear to be "good enough" (for the time, anyhow), then moved on to what we considered more important stuff. I do want to fix some of the gear code and various aspects of ground handling, but we've got a lot on our plate right now, and I *feel* that the current ground handling (in still air) is *simulated* adequately. We are two people (and sometimes three or four) coding JSBSim who have a job and family (in my case a very big one, now) and other very pressing non-coding responsibilities. We are working very hard to bring stability and new (and somewhat unique and versatile) capabilities to JSBSim, so when we are told that one of our features is incorrect it is a bit hard to swallow and also not really fair. It would be better to say that it is a way of modeling ground reactions that has limitations, or is an approximation. I've done lots of different kinds of simulating over the years, from EVA suit operation, to airlock, to fire detection and suppression, environmental control and life support, digital flight control simulation, and of course JSBSim. Curve fitting, approximation, and "good enough" are aspects I have learned by experience. Thick-headedness I was born with. In any case, as for not reading the initial comments, that's not what I was getting at. I was just unclear on what had been presented so far. Jon _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
