On January 18, 2005 02:21 am, Paul Surgeon wrote:
> Running Nasal code in the rendering loop to do tons of work would not be a
> very good idea in my opinion.
> I've looked through an A320 FCOM manual and it would take many thousands of
> lines of C++ to accomplish a half functional aircraft.
> I don't think Nasal is the tool for the job.
Each aircraft systems are tailored to that aircraft.  Using C++ here will be 
too restrictive and is not going to be a good idea.

> A central processing "blackbox" that contains all the logic for the
> aircraft that also get's updated in the rendering loop.
> The blackbox will simulate/handle the hydraulic and electrical systems,
> generate and feed the display data to the intruments, handle the logic for
> failures, receive input from all the simulated aircraft sensors and cockpit
> switches, etc.
Putting everything in one script is not a good way to do it either.  If the 
hydraulic "system" recieves a runtime error, the electrical system plus 
everything else are dead.

> A generic communications bus that can be used to hook instruments/switches
> and the blackbox together. Using a handful of sockets is not a good way to
> do it and properties maybe be a bit messy and I would require hundreds of
> them.
May be the bus can be simulated using the property tree, or inside a root-less 
node.

> Unfortunately this is going to sit on the backburner for a long time as
> it's tons of work to implement, I'm already too busy with other projects
> and I doubt anybody else would be willing to tackle it in the near future.
In the mean time, new planes will come out and they will be just as empty.



Ampere

_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Reply via email to