> 1.) It should be specified via property names, rather than as a C++ > interface. This is much easier to support across multiple > codebases, and and stuff in flight.cxx is complicated enough > already. > > 2.) It should be minimal. One of the nice things about having > multiple FDMs is that their intersection serves as a good > indication of what is actually important. The obscure stuff that > is unique to the different FDMs can be treated as prototype code.
That sounds good. Right now I'm really interested in the particular parameters that would be commonly expected to be required - not necessarily the specific mechanism for passing them, although using properties seems like the obvious choice. Jon _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
