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. <snip>
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. Best, Jim _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
