> I know, some people on the forum would like to eventually replace
> fgfs(.exe) with nasal(.exe), because apparently everything is "just
> better" (tm) when implemented in Nasal (core = bad, nasal = good). But I
> really think this is a completely wrong direction - and harming the
> project.
Co
> Concerning your original issue on implementing an autopilot: a much
> better way to do it is to avoid Nasal for the actual autopilot
> controller elements (numeric computation). Instead, use XML "autopilot"
> rules for the filter, gain, damper, integrator elements:
> http://wiki.flightgear.org/Au
> From: Johnathan Van Why - 2012-08-29 13:20
>
> I have a need to run Nasal code at the same rate as the simulation.
>
> At this point, I am unsure which to pursue. Which method do you find to be
> better?
To be frank, the whole idea is just bad in the first place - so I vote
for #3: avoid *any*
I know this has been brought up before, but it's been a while so I'll bring
it up again.
I have a need to run Nasal code at the same rate as the simulation.
Currently, without modifying the source code for FlightGear, the only way
to do this is to find a property updated at the right time in the
s
4 matches
Mail list logo
