> Vivian Meazza wrote:
> > I like it very much indeed. Will it work in practice? Testing and
> > tuning will take some time as I don't have any exact data. Probably
> > into next week.
> I suspect it should work fine. The real device would have been an
> analog computer hooked to a (presumably) slow motor, so the 10 Hz
> update rate shouldn't be too much of an issue. You could get fancy
> and use the interpolate() code to make it slew smoothly rather than
> jumping to the new value instantly.
I suppose you could define a spring, some bellows and levers as an analogue
computer. Come to think of it, I've used a few like that. Add in a potter's
wheel and a couple of differentials, and call it a fire control computer.
> Note that there are at least a few bugs in the sample code: it needs
> to clamp to the range [-1:0] and then multiply by AUTHORITY, rather
> than generating the normalized value and then clamping to authority;
> it doesn't handle the cutout control, the tunables should probably be
> properties instead of hardcoded numbers, should have a failsafe case
> for an uninitialized FDM, etc...
Bugs, typos. It's running now, but doesn't work correctly. I need some info:
Additive? I.e. are the input axes added?
Flightgear-devel mailing list