Jonathan Polley writes: > p.s. I am ignoring CG here because, to me, it is only one of the > components of understanding the airframe. To me, airframe means body size > and shape.
Yes, I think we need to keep the terminology and concepts straight. There is some confusion in this thread which is confusing the discusion. What we have been referring to as the CG is a bit of misnomer. We really want the FDM to produce the location of a *fixed* "reference point" of the aircraft (in world coordinates). This reference point needs to be fixed relative to the airframe (but could be anywhere.) If the FDM doesn't plan on moving the CG, then the reference point could be the CG, but like you say, forget about the CG, what we are talking about here is a fixed reference point relative to the airframe. > p.p.s. Is there some generic abstraction of airframe in FlightGear so > that any FDM can properly compute the view offset? If I understand your question, the answer is yes (or used to be yes) in that we can set the actual view point to be some point relative to the aircraft's reference point. The FDM doesn't really care about this, it is only for the purpose of calculating the proper view position. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
