Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote:
So I shouldn't touch the responsiveness then?!. But rather add a new property with better responsiveness.
Out of curiosity, why do you think that the responsiveness should be better?
It improves controller performance. But I still don't want to go beyond what is possible in the real world.
I've flown briefly behind two small-plane autopilots (one newer, one older) and they were both extremely jerky things. Do you have any reason to believe that the AP you're modelling gets more responsive input than a real TC can give?
No, not more respinsive than possible, but I thought that the damping in FlightGear _and_ in real world was only for display purposes. So maybe there would be a possiblility to get the signal before it was damped. After reading the article on the AVWeb site and noting this:
The instrument also contains a dashpot in order to slow down the movement of the gimbal ...
and
The dashpot is replaced by a viscous dampener ...
It seems that since the gimbal is dampened it can not output a more responsive signal.
-- Roy Vegard Ovesen
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
