"Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
> The other issue to consider is we could create the worlds most super
> whiz bang remote FDM interface, [...]
I don't feel it's so much about whiz bang.
To make those people happy (to whom I've been talking) I expect it
would be sufficient to write down a bit pattern of the current
version on your most preferred platform, declare this document as the
'official' FlightGear network FDM interface description and, this is
actually the point, make sure that this doesn't change with the
next version of FG or on another CPU.
These people don't want to risk adjusting their FDM to a moving target.
They'd like to see an interface that they can rely on - at least for a
predictable amount of time instead of starting reverse-engineering with
every new version. These people don't write their FDM in C, the way
they generate FDM output probably differs significantly from the way
the data is generated by FG itself (if used as a standalone FDM).
That's all.
This doesn't mean the interface has to be changeless for the next ten
years. If the need arises to apply changes to the interface then you
could simply update the interface description and point at the changes.
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
