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 -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel