On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > Just like we have competing FDM's with different focus, strengths > and weaknesses, I don't think it is bad to have competing > weather/environment management systems with different focus, > strengths and weaknesses.
When you say "weather/environment management system" what do you mean? Do you mean something that includes the following? 1. weather data retrieval mechanism 2. conversion from raw form to a source independent format stored either in memory, or a persistent format 3. logical analysis of the code to isolate relevant data 4. code to render the visible aspects of the weather If so, that's cool, but to me it seems like this is sort of slicing the pie the wrong way. I would hate to think that any alternate "weather/environment management system would have to duplicate functionality across so many layers of code. It just seems to me that it would make sense to isolate the steps so that each one could be replaced individually. Also, are there any goals regarding weather in FG? If someone were to rewrite the weather subsystem, would it be more appropriate to simply do another system like what we have or would it be more appropriate to plan for the day when we move beyond flat plane cloud layers? It seems that the current FG weather system is a lot like X-Plane's. With the exception of ATIS reading the string appropriate for its location, the weather for the entire world is identical to the weather at the aircraft's current location. If one wanted to simulate approaching a line of thunderstorms, the weather model would need to manage the data in such a way that that different geographic areas could have different weather. Forgive me if I stepped on anyone's toes. Thad _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
