David Culp writes:

 > I need to at least 31 control nodes in FGControls in order to
 > handle turbines, and I see that it already contains 72 nodes.  I
 > can see the number growing to 200 or more.  It might be time to
 > organize with sub-nodes:
 > 
 > /controls/flight
 > /controls/gear
 > /controls/engine
 > /controls/engine/piston
 > /controls/engine/turbine
 > /controls/engine/rocket
 > /controls/propeller
 > /controls/electrical
 > /controls/hydraulic
 > /controls/anti-ice
 > /controls/pneumatics
 > /controls/pressurization
 > ...etc
 > 
 > This would break a lot of the present code, so it will need some
 > discussion.

I think we need to make some changes anyway, especially so that we can
simulate control failures.  For example, right now we have

  /controls/mixture[0]
  /controls/mixture[1]
  /controls/mixture[2]
  /controls/propeller-pitch[0]
  /controls/propeller-pitch[1]
  /controls/propeller-pitch[2]
  /controls/throttle[0]
  /controls/throttle[1]
  /controls/throttle[2]

and so on.  As David suggests, we could regroup those in several
different ways:

  /controls/engine[0]/mixture
  /controls/engine[0]/propeller-pitch
  /controls/engine[0]/throttle

  /controls/engine[1]/mixture
  /controls/engine[1]/propeller-pitch
  /controls/engine[1]/throttle

  /controls/engine[2]/mixture
  /controls/engine[2]/propeller-pitch
  /controls/engine[2]/throttle

or even

  /controls/engines/engine[0]/mixture

(which would give an uncluttered view in /controls).

Whatever we choose, I think that we need to break down the top level
as well, so that we have

  [..]/throttle/setting-norm
  [..]/throttle/serviceable

and possibly others.  This way, we can introduce control failures the
same way we introduce system and instrument failures.  Deciding how
long to make the paths is always difficult because of the tradeoffs
between typing and browsing.  For the typists, it's best to keep
the tree as flat as possible; for the browsers, it's best to keep the
tree nodes as uncluttered as possible.  Those two goals are mutually
exclusive.


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

Reply via email to