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

Reply via email to