On February 18, 2005 08:02 am, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
I'll find out anyway. I can't stand people borrowing things from me and
returning them like *that*!
http://members.aon.at/mfranz/exhibit_A.jpg
m.
Yes, that's a very nice touch. =)
On February 18, 2005 12:45 pm, Christian Mayer wrote:
This reminds me, that we don't have a nice crash simulation yet. (It
doesn't need to be realistic).
We probably could do this, when an crash occures:
1) switch to external view (that should be easy)
2) split up the scenegraph of the model and solve a simple motion
equation for the parts (so that they bounce on the ground - that needs
a heavy damping though)
3) put a fireball in the middle
The result isn't realistic but much nicer than the current approach
(it looks more like an arcade game though...)
Step 1 and 2 shouldn't be too hard to do with the current code.
CU,
Christian
Every landing is basically a crash... or every crash is basically a landing.
The two terms just differ in how much damage the aircraft received. ;-)
In my opinion, it will be better in the long run to model fatigue instead. By
modelling fatigue:
* damages can be accumlated. For example, the aircraft can make 19 hard
landings without incident, but has its landing gears break off in the 20th.
* parts can still break off right away if enough force is applied, like what
you've suggested in #2.
For visualizations, different effects can be created for different materials
contacting with some other material. For contacts with concrete or asphalt:
rubber will create smoke, metal will create sparks, fuel tanks will create
fireballs and black smoke, etc.
Putting all the above into a fatigue-routine or a fatigue-class, we can make a
call to it everytime the aircraft makes a contact with the ground. We can
make a call to it every second, too. Afterall, aicrafts can disintegrate at
any time.
Ampere
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
