On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:23:56 -0700 Russell Suter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
But then, the FDM still has to report where the FDM is in a common reference frame.
Exactly! At my company, we call this the control point and we have standardized on the Empty Weight CG.
The 3D model designer will likely have no idea where the empty weight CG is, nor will they often care. They do know where physical points on the aircraft are, however. Additionally, the empty weight CG will be a slippery item to standardize on. Does that mean no fuel? No cargo? nothing? no stores? the C/D model or the A/B model? etc. The VRP is a **solid** point of reference.
I'm not speaking for Andy here, but this is what I'm trying to get across. The VRP is an excellent idea. I know that it can
be used to solve the problem. I also know that the cost (for a single instance) is relatively inexpensive.
The cost is not even an issue at all.
My point is that it really is unnecessary. If you already have a fixed
point reference in the FDM, then use it. Translate the visual model to
that point ONCE either by the graphic artist moving the model, or doing it automatically when the model is loaded. Instead
of the VRP data being used by the FDM, it becomes meta data for the model.
What do you mean "metadata for the model"
This way, the graphic artists can use whatever origin they want based on the data they have.
This is already the case! The 3D modeler can and _do_ use any origin they want. They may often know only what the plane ***looks*** like. This is why the VRP is required. There needs to be a common point of reference that both the FDMs (plural) and the 3D *****visual***** model know about without question. The empty weight CG and the current (dynamic) CG is **not** it.
Jon
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
