I've been looking at the data table format for DAVE-ML, for example:

<dataTable> <!-- Note: last breakpoint changes most rapidly -->
9.5013e-01 6.1543e-01 5.7891e-02 1.5274e-02 8.3812e-01 1.9343e-01
2.3114e-01 7.9194e-01 3.5287e-01 7.4679e-01 1.9640e-02 6.8222e-01
8.2141e-01 4.1027e-01 2.7219e-01 2.0265e-01 3.0462e-01 8.5366e-01
4.4470e-01 8.9365e-01 1.9881e-01 6.7214e-01 1.8965e-01 5.9356e-01

For JSBSim, we have been working on moving our aircraft config file format closer to DAVE-ML, where applicable. Our table format is already similar to the above, though in our case we have the breakpoints as part of the table data.

As we discuss the newer XML format we intend to use for JSBSim, the question has been raised about the pros and cons of the above format. For one, it is nice to be able to look at the data and see what it means without a bunch of tags obfuscating the data. The above format also is conducive to import/export with spreadsheet programs. However, if an editor or automated process is to be used in authoring a DAVE-ML file (or in our case a JSBSim file) we also ask if there is a greater benefit in using a more "whole" XML specification, such as:

 <tr> <td> 0.1 </td> <td> 0.34 </td> </tr>
 <tr> <td> 0.2 </td> <td> 0.49 </td> </tr>
 <tr> <td> 0.3 </td> <td> 0.57 </td> </tr>
 <tr> <td> 0.4 </td> <td> 0.68 </td> </tr>
 <tr> <td> 0.5 </td> <td> 1.75 </td>< /tr>

Jon Berndt

Reply via email to