Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another documentation correction

2002-02-14 Thread Erik Hofman
Alex Perry wrote: Think of it this way: a YASim aircraft will be as close to the real airplane as the real one is to any other aircraft of the same general class. That's good enough for me. And in a lot of situations (military aircraft in particular), this is as good as we're going to get

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another documentation correction

2002-02-14 Thread jsb
Alex Perry wrote: Think of it this way: a YASim aircraft will be as close to the real airplane as the real one is to any other aircraft of the same general class. That's good enough for me. And in a lot of situations (military aircraft in particular), this is as good as we're going to get

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Another documentation correction

2002-02-14 Thread BERNDT, JON S. (JON) (JSC-EX) (LM)
Ha! Actually, when we get around to it, we do want to be plausible off-nominal, too. Jon Jon, I read that sentence, digested it and promptly started snickering insanely. What a quote. I'm not crazy, I'm plausibly off-nominal! *rofl* ?? Maybe I've been around NASA types too

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Another documentation correction

2002-02-14 Thread Gene Buckle
Maybe I've been around NASA types too long. ;-) What I meant was that we'd like to have at least *believable* flight dynamics when flying in off-nominal conditions (spin, hammerhead, etc.) But I am glad I made you laugh. :-) You just keep on hanging out with those NASA guys. :) BTW, if