> That's also to be determined. As I mentioned, I'm working from front > to back. FGEnvironment contains a set of environment information for > a single place and time. Once we get that working better, I'll add > FGEnvironmentManager to get the environment information for places > (and times?) beyond the aircraft's current locus; at first, it will > return the same information for everywhere, but later it will start > differentiating in different ways. The rest of FlightGear won't have > to know about that -- all it has to know is how to get an environment > object:
I've said it before and I'll say it again ... The METAR information is _mostly_ useless in describing both flight conditions and simulation parameters for the purposes of FlightGear. The purpose of the report is to describe conditions on the _surface_ and _at_ the airport with no considerations for anywhere else in the area. Only if you're doing touch-n-goes, is this valuable and appropriate. Once you leave the airport environment, either by climbing a few thousand feet, or by flying a couple of miles in any direction, the METAR no longer gives information, unless you use a WAG (wild assed guess) to extrapolate the whole airmass from it. > In time. It depends on how the manager develops. For now, I just > want to be able to have the basics: temperature, winds, clouds, > visibility, magnetic variation, etc. The only reporting format that describes local conditions, as seen by an aircraft and/or a pilot, is the PIREP. This is also the best way to describe the conditions that the instructor or pilot wishes to have created. It includes localization in position, altitude and time, as well as supporting airmass motion and temperature data. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
