On jeu 4 octobre 2007, Mike Schuh wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, gh.robin wrote: > >As far i understand the "<type>carrier</type>" was developed to answer to > >landing and taking off on/from carrier but any model which is defined > ><type>carrier</type> can have the same features or less (no catapult, no > >wire, no speed) , like your oil platform AND only available with non > >flying model. > > Would it make sense to create/define a generic "heliport" type? It could > be used for the oil platform or the top of a building or ... > > -- > Mike Schuh - Seattle, Washington USA > http://www.farmdale.com > The top of a building is solid, without any _demo <type>carrier</type> definition. However we could get profit of the park position definition.
For instance we could have fgfs --aircraft=bo105 --prop:sim/ai/scenario[1]=fgtower_demo --carrier=fgtower fgtower_demo.xml being <type>carrier</type> -- Gérard http://perso.orange.fr/GRTux/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
