[... Tony wrote ...]:
OK, after discovering that my original implementation was horribly
buggy, I have now committed a better version of the normalized control
surface position code to JSBSim and FG cvs. There is a new set of
properties for these:
/surface-positions/flap-pos-pct
[...]
Hmmm,
Andy Ross wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Christian Mayer wrote:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
In my mind, mass is in kg. and force is in Newtons.
That's correct.
Are you sure [...]?
See?
My bad
Oh, dear. Time for the
Alex Perry writes:
An earlier suggestion was -n for normalized, which is probably the
most accurate (and has the advantage of brevity). Is there any
standard unit abbreviation that conflicts with that and is useful for
flight simulation?
How about tackng -1 on the end ?
That's
On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 04:06, David Megginson wrote:
Alex Perry writes:
An earlier suggestion was -n for normalized, which is probably the
most accurate (and has the advantage of brevity). Is there any
standard unit abbreviation that conflicts with that and is useful for
flight
David Megginson wtore:
Alex Perry writes:
How about tackng -1 on the end ?
That's nice, but since Tony and Andy have agreed on -norm, we may as
well leave the whole discussion closed.
Oooh, actually I really like -1. Shorter and really obvious. Alas
that it's too late. I weep for
- Original Message -
From: Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] JSBSim changes
[snip]
This doesn't hold for the blasphemous engineering units. How many
pounds of thrust are required to accelerate
On Thu, 2002-02-28 at 06:16, David Megginson wrote:
Tony Peden writes:
OK, after discovering that my original implementation was horribly
buggy, I have now committed a better version of the normalized control
surface position code to JSBSim and FG cvs. There is a new set of
Tony Peden writes:
I certainly like the idea of having some sort of units indicator
on every property name, though I agree risk of breakage is high
in this case.
I can change everything in FlightGear and the base package, but I'm
worried about breaking people's private config files,
Well, leaving them as they are certainly won't be a problem for the
current developers -- the units for those have been percent for as long
as I can remember. And percent are non-dimensional, so no units
indicator is probably just as correct as -pct or -nd or whatever.
How about having a
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Tony Peden writes:
I certainly like the idea of having some sort of units indicator
on every property name, though I agree risk of breakage is high
in this case.
I can change everything in FlightGear and the base package, but I'm
worried
Tony Peden wrote:
David Megginson wrote:
Tony Peden wrote:
I certainly like the idea of having some sort of units indicator
on every property name, though I agree risk of breakage is high
in this case.
I can change everything in FlightGear and the base package, but I'm
Andy Ross writes:
I agree in general. I'd suggest the use of -fraction or somesuch
instead of -pct if the range is 0:1, as it is for most of these
properties currently.
An earlier suggestion was -n for normalized, which is probably the
most accurate (and has the advantage of brevity).
I agree in general. I'd suggest the use of -fraction or somesuch
instead of -pct if the range is 0:1, as it is for most of these
properties currently.
An earlier suggestion was -n for normalized, which is probably the
most accurate (and has the advantage of brevity). Is there any
David Megginson wrote:
Andy Ross writes:
I agree in general. I'd suggest the use of -fraction or somesuch
instead of -pct if the range is 0:1, as it is for most of these
properties currently.
An earlier suggestion was -n for normalized, which is probably the
most accurate (and
David M. wrote:
An earlier suggestion was -n for normalized, which is probably the
most accurate (and has the advantage of brevity). Is there any
standard unit abbreviation that conflicts with that and is useful for
flight simulation?
I am not aware of a standard, currently. However, we
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 10:25:36AM -0800, Andy Ross wrote:
Tony Peden wrote:
David Megginson wrote:
Tony Peden wrote:
I certainly like the idea of having some sort of units indicator
on every property name, though I agree risk of breakage is high
in this case.
I can change
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 01:31:47PM -0500, David Megginson wrote:
Alex Perry writes:
How about having a file that contains lines like this ...
/position/altitude-ft /position/altitude-m3.3
It creates a bunch of property nodes for aliasing with a scaling factor,
Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 10:25:36AM -0800, Andy Ross wrote:
Tony Peden wrote:
David Megginson wrote:
Tony Peden wrote:
I certainly like the idea of having some sort of units indicator
on every property name, though I agree risk of breakage is
Jim Wilson wrote:
But if those settings don't represent a form of units--just arbitrary
values, why do they need a suffix? The suffixes were intended to
reflect units and make sense only when they mean something, like
knowing if the value is in feet or meters, degrees or radians, knots
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 07:38:39PM -, Jim Wilson wrote:
OK, if you really want to save percent for 0-100 quantities, how about
something a little shorter than -fraction, -ratio
(-fraction is perfectly good, just long)
But if those settings don't represent a form of units--just
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Tony Peden wrote:
I hadn't been suggesting switching everything to metric, but now that
you mention it ...
Oh, no!
I have to admit - when I saw someone mention air pressure and in/Hg the
other day I thought it was a bad thing! Even us die hard imperial brits
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 08:00:49PM +, Jon Stockill wrote:
Now, feet, inches, miles, furlongs, etc are another matter :-)
Let's not go too far. Furlongs? Next you'll want us to start using
stones. :)
Actually, I'd like to see everything converted to metric in FG.
I never had a problem
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:13:34 -0500
James A. Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The prof would pose a question in one system and expect the answer
in the other. That borders on torture. I wish that all engineering
classes used metric only these days. Unfortunately, I'm sure it's not
the case.
Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
To me, no units specified does not automatically imply non-dimensional.
It means I still have to ask what the units are.
I haven't had this problem in trying to understand these values, but maybe
I've just been programming too long. :-)
To me, items
Jim Wilson writes:
But if those settings don't represent a form of units--just
arbitrary values, why do they need a suffix? The suffixes were
intended to reflect units and make sense only when they mean
something, like knowing if the value is in feet or meters, degrees
or radians,
Jon Stockill writes:
Now, feet, inches, miles, furlongs, etc are another matter :-)
Why don't we give this thread a rest, then resume it in a fortnight?
I have half a stone of paperwork to get through first.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jon S Berndt writes:
Metric isn't perfect either - it's been sort of perverted
by ... I don't know who.
Napoleon.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jon S Berndt wrote:
Metric isn't perfect either - it's been sort of perverted
by ... I don't know who. In my mind, mass is in kg. and
force is in Newtons.
That's correct.
Unfortunately, metric mass terms are
used to describe how much something weighs, i.e. a
force. This leads to almost
Jon S Berndt wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:25:47 +0100
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christian Mayer wrote:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
Metric isn't perfect either - it's been sort of perverted
by ... I don't know who. In my mind, mass is in kg. and
force is in Newtons.
That's
Erik Hofman wrote:
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Christian Mayer wrote:
Jon S Berndt wrote:
In my mind, mass is in kg. and force is in Newtons.
That's correct.
Are you sure [...]?
See?
My bad
Oh, dear. Time for the whirlwind tour of unit conventions.
Jon Stockill writes:
Now, feet, inches, miles, furlongs, etc are another matter :-)
Why don't we give this thread a rest, then resume it in a fortnight?
I have half a stone of paperwork to get through first.
0.5 stone = 7 lb = 3.178 kgabout 635 sheets.
Standard copy
I agree in general. I'd suggest the use of -fraction or somesuch
instead of -pct if the range is 0:1, as it is for most of these
properties currently.
An earlier suggestion was -n for normalized, which is probably the
most accurate (and has the advantage of brevity). Is there any
32 matches
Mail list logo
