On Apr 6, 2010, at 7:27 PM, David Megginson wrote: > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 7:06 PM, James Turner <zakal...@mac.com> wrote: > >> My concern is touching the dreaded position init code, which is already >> baroque and complex. There's also the question of guessing a parking >> position when we don't have parking stand data - eg picking a point some >> distance away from the runway centerline (runway width * 5, maybe?), level >> with the threshold - but like all heuristics, this one has problems. > > OK, here's my suggestion: *all* aircraft start with the runway > threshold with the engine idling, unless the user has overridden that. > Engine on/off is a decision that it doesn't make sense leaving to > individual aircraft designers, since it's a cross-cutting user > experience question. > > > All the best, > > > David >
>From a user's point of view, I disagree wholeheartedly. The individual >aircraft designer should have complete control of the aircraft's state when it >spawns. Until it's a collision issue, why force aircraft to spawn running? Spawning non-running in more realistic, no matter where it spawns. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
