Jon S Berndt writes: > >On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 12:11:43 -0500 > "Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Yes BUT ... your FGPosition is what I would call FGRigidBody >>ie you have velocity and acceleration terms >>IMHO the class heirarchy should be something like > >Given any 100 people, you'll get 400 different FDMs. :-)
:-)) I guess I was just trying to point out that IMHO we shouldn't adopt the JSBSIM::FGPosition class as is in that it has in the more general enviroment of FGFS xtra baggage when one is considering 'statically' positioned things such as buildings signposts ect... That said -- I do believe that FGFS should make an object heirarchy that should be all stem from a class that is a wrapper around a 4x4 Matrix that is the 'Homogeneous Matrix' representatation of a point in the world. hence my prefered name class HMatrix. For most Dynamic Objects I also suggest that the equivalant of my RigidBody class is the 'obvious choice' apon which to base further object derivation. Note these are 'minimal' base classes meant to be derived from What we actually end up calling them I really do not care however it makes sense to me that the names reflect the nomenclature of the 'standard Math / Physics' principals that they implement ie HMatrix and RigidBody Regards Norman _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
