On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:22:56 -0600, Jon wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
..aaand... On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:23:17 -0600, Jon wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:51:07 -0500 > "Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jon S Berndt writes: > >> > >> This is irrelevant, also - at least for JSBSim. > > > > That is an excellent observation > > > >FGFS is more then JSBSim though :-) > > > > Norman > > Absolutely. And JSBSim is used by more than FlightGear - which leads > to part of the concern I have. FlightGear should not require the FDM > to massage values that it should be massaging itself. > > Abstraction in object-oriented design has been referred to as the "the > elimination of the irrelevant and the amplification of the essential". > All FDMs I have worked with or am aware of (except, perhaps YASim) > output control surface deflections in degrees, and for good reason: > it's natural, it's physical. From the point of view of JSBSim, > "normalized" aerosurface deflections are unnatural and irrelevant. The > overhead and baggage code causes confusion and obfuscates the > operation of flight control code. It clutters the code. I have no > problem with FlightGear doing whatever it wants to with the values we > send, but I remain skeptical about using "normalized" values as a > "common transport device" for the actual physical value. > > Jon > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d > -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
