[Flightgear-devel] Re: FCS normalization
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:51:07 -0500 "Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jon S Berndt writes: This is irrelevant, also - at least for JSBSim. That is an excellent observation FGFS is more then JSBSim though :-) Norman Absolutely. And JSBSim is used by more than FlightGear - which leads to part of the concern I have. FlightGear should not require the FDM to massage values that it should be massaging itself. Abstraction in object-oriented design has been referred to as the "the elimination of the irrelevant and the amplification of the essential". All FDMs I have worked with or am aware of (except, perhaps YASim) output control surface deflections in degrees, and for good reason: it's natural, it's physical. From the point of view of JSBSim, "normalized" aerosurface deflections are unnatural and irrelevant. The overhead and baggage code causes confusion and obfuscates the operation of flight control code. It clutters the code. I have no problem with FlightGear doing whatever it wants to with the values we send, but I remain skeptical about using "normalized" values as a "common transport device" for the actual physical value. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Re: FCS normalization
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:51:07 -0500 "Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jon S Berndt writes: This is irrelevant, also - at least for JSBSim. That is an excellent observation FGFS is more then JSBSim though :-) Norman Absolutely. And JSBSim is used by more than FlightGear - which leads to part of the concern I have. FlightGear should not require the FDM to massage values that it should be massaging itself. Abstraction in object-oriented design has been referred to as the "the elimination of the irrelevant and the amplification of the essential". All FDMs I have worked with or am aware of (except, perhaps YASim) output control surface deflections in degrees, and for good reason: it's natural, it's physical. From the point of view of JSBSim, "normalized" aerosurface deflections are unnatural and irrelevant. The overhead and baggage code causes confusion and obfuscates the operation of flight control code. It clutters the code. I have no problem with FlightGear doing whatever it wants to with the values we send, but I remain skeptical about using "normalized" values as a "common transport device" for the actual physical value. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
