On Thursday 20 January 2005 19:47, Jim Wilson wrote: > David Luff said: > > On 20/01/2005 at 10:55 Jon Berndt wrote: > > >> Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack > > >> some magic. > > > > > >Setting up > > > > > >> the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. > > >> Berdnt was > > > > > >claiming > > > > > >> at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working > > >> JSBSim model. > > > > > > ... which I did. I thought. The more I looked at the > > > numbers for aero qualities that I > > >was getting from DATCOM, the more I realized something was > > > amiss. Also, at the time I > > >believe our engine capabilities were not what I thought > > > they were. Now we have a > > >turbocharged piston engine model. > > > > You should consider the turbocharging to be an alpha model > > though - we haven't applied it in anger yet. When you start > > on a P51 or Spitfire (or any other model) give me a heads up > > and I'll test/refine/debug the turbo/supercharging stuff in > > tandem with what you're doing. > > We'd be a lot further or at least I'd have accomplished more > along the lines of 3D modeling and enhancing > animation/rendering code if I hadn't spent so much time > working on something I know hardly anything about (flight > modeling). This isn't to take away at all from the great work > that folks have done with the FDM code. > > Is there any chance someone out there is interested in > focusing on improving the flight model definitions for the 3D > art that we already have? > > Best, > > Jim
Heh! - I'd guess I'm already spending about 70-80% of my FG time on flight behaviour stuff and about 20-30% on modelling & texturing. It's a varying figure because sometimes I'll combine a flight test with looking at large scale geological features:) All my fdms are in a state of flux and are constantly being worked on but I wouldn't have any problem with other people working on them too. However, if someone were to change a value, that I knew to be correct, to a value that was incorrect, say the wing incidence for example, then I think the fdms would have to fork. I can't see how using an incorrect value for something can produce something that's accurate and instead I would put more effort into finding what's wrong in the guesswork stuff. The idea of forking fdms wouldn't bother me at all though - in fact I would welcome it and I think it would be interesting to compare different fdms for the same a/c. LeeE _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
