David Luff writes:

 > OK, I can see the point of wanting a proper simulation when within
 > reasonably close visual distance of the target.  My concern was that if
 > there were a lot of traffic being simulated, a lot of it known to the pilot
 > only through the radio communication, then using an fdm thats updating at
 > 120Hz and simulating right down to the exhaust gas temperature is overkill,
 > and that using a greately simplified model with basically a look-up table
 > of typical speeds and climb/descent rates would allow the additional
 > traffic to be updated in a queue with, say, only one plane updated per
 > timestep if far enough away from the viewer.

That's a good point.  The other option would be to cut down the Hz for
the AIs -- how low could we make it before the autopilot lost control
-- 10Hz?  2Hz?

All the best,


David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/

Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to