Lee Elliott wrote:
I think the others have said that there's no immediate need for it but I
can't see how it could be a bad thing. While it may not be needed now,
it offers more options and possibilities and should be possible with a
low overhead. As long as any scheme could be easily
On Saturday 15 November 2003 08:50, Erik Hofman wrote:
Lee Elliott wrote:
I think the others have said that there's no immediate need for it but
I
can't see how it could be a bad thing. While it may not be needed
now,
it offers more options and possibilities and should be possible
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:20:42 -0800 (PST)
Gene Buckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any interest in getting that detailed on the WB calcs? When
duplicating a real-world instrument, the weights are easily available
and a generic weight could be assigned to avionics that don't model a
specific
Gene Buckle writes:
After looking through the various instrumentation files, I noticed that
there is no weight data associated with the instruments.
For those that don't know, each instrument that goes into the panel is
labeled with its weight. This is done to make sure that an
Is there any interest in getting that detailed on the WB calcs? When
duplicating a real-world instrument, the weights are easily available
and a generic weight could be assigned to avionics that don't model a
specific real world model/brand.
The only problem with that I think is that it
On Friday 14 November 2003 19:20, Gene Buckle wrote:
After looking through the various instrumentation files, I noticed that
there is no weight data associated with the instruments.
For those that don't know, each instrument that goes into the panel is
labeled with its weight. This is done
