On 13 Nov 2002 15:22:15 -0800, Tony Peden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <1037229736.19944.727.camel@raptor>:
> On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 08:16, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > > ..I like a birds view building block approach: JSBSim can be run as > > an external fdm to FG. How about making this the standard approach? > > > > Engine models imho should be called externally again, from the fdms. > > All of this is built on top of zlib, plib, SimGear etc. Modules. > > With clear interfaces. > > I can see the appeal of multiple processes in some instances (such as > the need to avoid mixing GPL and non-GPL code). Otherwise, it's > unnecessary complication, especially from a users point of view. ..coming from penguin world with many nice utilities co-operating to do the work, I beg to differ. ;-) > > > > ..some of us like hot OpenGL graphics and neat sceneries to plan and > > tweak our next air show. At other times, we analyse and tweak an > > airframe or an engine, and then we prefer to burn our cpu cycles in > > the fdm and engine models and can live with slow vesa-type graphics. > > You really don't need to be concerned about such a trade ... the fdms > simply do not consume alot of cpu cycles. ..currently, no, agreed, in the future we may want to tinker with more complex fdms, flexing wings, iceing, damage models, or hook up a plane, balloon, submarine or a wind tunnel to it, then we have Atlas, Open Cockpit, networking, etc, etc, some day I will want to try fire more sparkling pine wood in my zeppeliner's gasifier... ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
