On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:22:56 -0600, Jon wrote in message
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:23:17 -0600, Jon wrote in message
> 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.
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
..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