John Denker wrote: > On 01/01/2009 05:05 PM, Martin Spott wrote: > > >> Different aircraft are equippped with electrical systems of different >> nominal voltage. You can buy most of the common instruments for at >> least two different voltages, >> > > I have no objection to standardizing on "real volts" so long > as we standardize on something. > > In the RW they only make one kind of instrument. Some instruments > like my GPS have a fancy regulator so they work fine on any voltage > from 6 V to 32 V; otherwise there is a jumper on the back of the > instrument. > > Putting a "jumper" in the SW instrument is super-easy and > seems entirely reasonable if one wants this degree of realism. > > What is not reasonable is having a menagerie of incompatible > un-jumperable 1 V instruments, 12 V instruments, 28 V instruments, > and instruments that don't check the power state at all. > > John, I agree completely with pursuing such a standard. Having a documented standard would make both AC and instrument modeling easier. Either approach could work and I could live with either. With the "jumper" approach, we should also have a fraction required such as 0.8 or 0.5 used in the power test as you suggested. In the pa24, with out the engine running and current being drawn, the battery actually discharges and w/o such a fraction required, the instrument would immediately fail with just the battery power which would be very unrealistic.
- Dave P. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
