Gerard ROBIN wrote:
Le mardi 22 novembre 2005 à 14:15 +0000, AJ MacLeod a écrit :
On Tuesday 22 November 2005 13:42, Dave Culp wrote:
I have ignored the electrical system because, last time I looked, it is not
suited for non-GA aircraft.
Probably true for the XML system - the new nasal electrical system is capable
of simulating pretty much anything as far as I can see, because it's
completely extensible.
On the downside, to get a decent result from the nasal system requires a bit
more knowledge both of programming and electrical systems. Neither of which
have ever been my strong points, although I'm slowly making some headway with
it... I see no reason so far that someone with skills in both those areas
couldn't produce a very believable system, even for fairly complex aircraft.
Syd Adams has done some nice work in this area I think...
Cheers,
AJ
Oh, just for experiment i tried to use the existing nasal electrical
(c172) mainly for Crusader, i found differences, and xml seems to be
better.
BTW: we get /systems/electrical/amps=-15 instead of -30 => not better
This property of course is the value intended to drive the ammeter
gauge. So a negative value means the battery is discharging. Positive
value means battery is charging.
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson http://www.flightgear.org/~curt
HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/
FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org
Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
