Jon Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I don't really think that the CG (or anything like it) should have > anything to do with a common reference point. I think it should be > something you can readily see. The nose/prop hub tip is about as > unambiguous as it gets. Due to the nature of defining the flight dynamic > model, and the nature of defining the 3D model - both people will know > where nose/prop hub are located.
Documenting a distance back from the nose for each aircraft would work fine. Whoever does the first flightmodel gets to pick the spot. The standard doesn't have to be all that unambiguous. Using the nose standard you've got 3D modelers deciding where on the airframe the aircraft should appear to rotate... which... umm... I guess is ok :-) > A question: is all the rotational/translation stuff figured out so that if > a pilot eyepoint is defined that the view will be properly rendered with > that in mind - even when the CG is askew because of fuel burnoff? If the fuel burnoff is refelected in the reporting of position and orientation by the FDM then the answer is yes. I would assume that would be the case :-) The chase view is really the only place we get screwed up if the origin isn't back on the wing. It looks funny. Not wrong, just funny. And it's kind of nice if the 3D model is in the middle of the screen instead of off to one side. Best, Jim _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
