On 01/22/2009 02:20 PM, Vivian Meazza wrote: > Looks good to me. Thanks for the explanation.
:-) > I suppose we don't allow for > humidity and pressure? In the 1/r^2 attenuation regime, none of that matters. Again, the exponential dissipation regime would be another story. > I get the impression that sound in the flyby view > doesn't vary with height? In some sense, height (Z) isn't any different from X or Y ... they all three contribute to the distance on an equal footing. For sure the biggest opportunity for improvement is to get the distance dependence right. 1/r^2 should suffice for present purposes. If the peak volume at nearest approach is not loud enough to break dishes, then the low volume will be inaudible before corrections to 1/r^2 become necessary. After that, for sure the biggest opportunity is _geometry_, in particular the _ground bounce_ that would reach the flyby observer. This would not produce a discernible echo but would cause constructive interference at some wavelengths and destructive interference at other wavelengths. There's even a good algorithm for modeling this, but I can't imagine it would be worth the trouble. There's a long list of more important things that need fixing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
