Richard Harke said:
> A rotation whether in degrees or radians only makes sense if the axis
> of rotation is specified. This would have to be on a per aircraft basis. Also
> I'm sure that many if not most control surfaces do not simply rotate about
> a single axis but involve sliding motion and rotation of multiple parts
> and often, rotation while sliding.
This is just what was going through my mind when reading this discussion.
Jon's concern is quite valid, but there are problems. As I work through
these concepts in my mind, I can see that although the current method sounds
more complicated for the 3D animator, having to deal with the real values
could be a lot worse (at least with the current architecture).
It might be useful for someone to work through the values as that would be
report for the various stages of deployment on a 747 flap system. As Richard
message suggests here the detail required by the 3D modeler is sometimes quite
a bit more than what is required by the FDM.
Also, to have some objects reported normalized and other objects reported
actual would be too confusing...even if the distinctions and reasons were
logically sensible. In the long run we'll benefit the most from consistency
even if it means more work at the FDM interface.
Flightgear-devel mailing list