On Montag, 5. April 2004 14:12, Jim Wilson wrote:
> This sounds like it might be excessive. We should continue to model
> instrumentation in flightgear.
Fine.
> Nothing more on this is needed from the FDM
> (we should only be translating to sensor points _if_ the particular
> aircraft models the instrument).
> That translation could easily occur in a
> Instrumentation/ subclasses. It would then be standardized across FDM's,
> which is why it is not advisable to increase the complexity of the FDM
> interface. We're having enough trouble keeping what we have standard.
Yep, I think this too. FGInterface is way too heavy. And too little
standardized. And it is too little documented :)
This seperation between hard and soft values are thought to make things a bit
leaner and cleaner. But I am not shure if I can reach this goal with that.
What I can tell is that I think FGInterface needs to be cleaned out to some
degree.
Ok, back to the original subject:
I am interrested if JSBSim should rely on the /preset/sim/onground property to
be set correct or if we should think of some heuristic to find out how we
should trim?
Greetings
Mathias
--
Mathias FrÃhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
