David Megginson said:

> Jim Wilson wrote:
> > Hmmm...maybe reusability isn't the most important issue here.  While I know
> > that there are many stock devices that are the same in different aircraft,  it
> > almost seems that numerically, with the number aircraft we have modeled now,
> > the non-common instruments are (or should be) more frequent.  
> Actually, the opposite is true, at least for general aviation: almost all 
> instruments and avionics are stock -- aircraft manufacturers buy them all 
> off the shelf, as do owners upgrading their planes.  For example, a United 
> altimeter, a Bendix-King transponder, or a Garmin 430 GPS/COM is just as 
> likely to appear in a Cessna 172 piston single as in a Beech King Air twin 
> turboprop.  Even the new general-aviation glass cockpits use mostly standard 
> stuff.

What I meant was with the number of aircraft we have modeled now, it seems
there are fewer common items.  We are in some cases sharing things that aren't
accurate to the original.  The war aircraft do seem to use a lot of different
instrumentation, probably so they can spend $10 million on some "nit pickin'"
new feature and while keeping the military industrial complex running in high

ASI is specific to the aircraft generally (or at least markings), altitude
indicators will be shared by aircraft operating at similar altitudes,  but
many of the others are, as you said, from stock being more universal depending
on their applications (e.g. gps, radios).

What we haven't done in FlightGear is name the files with manufacturer and
model ("united-5934-altimeter.ac" instead of just "alt.ac") like we have with
the bendix radio.



Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to