On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 04:26, David Megginson wrote: > Tony Peden writes: > > > The 48 in number checks with my copy of the POH (from which many > > other numbers have been derived, so we should probably stick with > > that) > > You've talked before about forking, and that might not be a bad idea. > Right now, we're more-or-less targetting a 172R, but the 48 number > (and perhaps many others) come from a POH for earlier models. I have > the performance tables and W&B both for the 172R and the 172P -- let > me know what numbers you'd like. > > My suggestion is that c172.xml (and --aircraft=c172) would disappear > altogether, and we'd have c172p.xml and c172r.xml instead.
I don't really object to that -- except that I wonder how many folks will be able to really tell the difference. Surely, even in the real thing, the differences are fairly subtle. I'm also not so sure that we have the fidelity that making that distinction implies. > > > All the best, > > > David > > -- > David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] We all know Linux is great ... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds. -- attributed to Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
