Andy Ross writes: > > But the error isn't very large. It's not like the old code was > horribly wrong. On the surface, it disagreed by about a meter or so. > Scenery buildings probably aren't placed that accurately anyway.
AFAIK the geoid error is an order of magnitude or so greater then then any discrepancy between the two codes so this really doeesn't make any differance and we are just kidding ourselves thinking one is more 'accurate' as far as representing 'reality' then the other. As far as I am concerned the primary differance between the two 'new' systems is that one is a 'closed' solution that just happens to be *very* widely used :-) for those who really care about being 'precise' here is AFAIK a current 'standard' starting point http://einstein.gge.unb.ca/tutorial/tutorial.htm Norman _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
