On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 12:40, Jon S Berndt wrote: > On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:09:34 -0800 (PST) > Tony Peden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I think it's pretty clear that we aren't going to agree on one > >coordinate system to use. > > > >Aside from that, agreeing on one takes away the freedom to choose a > >location that makes sense for the aircraft you are working on (for both > >the FDM and 3D modeling). > > I may not have made myself clear. I'd personally like to > use structural frame. However, that's not always > available, so we have to come up with something. We really > only care about distances, anyhow, not so much exact > locations. So, if we agree upon a convention (origin at > the nose tip, normally), then we can simply report the CG > location in that system and the Euler angles and the model > comes out looking fine. So, I think we can agree on > something.
What I'm proposing is that we don't have to agree to use the same point. We just need to provide a way to correct for the difference. > > Jon > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Tony Peden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
