Tony Peden writes: > On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 12:40, Jon S Berndt
> > >I think it's pretty clear that we aren't going to agree on one > > >coordinate system to use. > > > > > >Aside from that, agreeing on one takes away the freedom to choose a > > >location that makes sense for the aircraft you are working on (for both > > >the FDM and 3D modeling). > > > > I may not have made myself clear. I'd personally like to > > use structural frame. However, that's not always > > available, so we have to come up with something. We really > > only care about distances, anyhow, not so much exact > > locations. So, if we agree upon a convention (origin at > > the nose tip, normally), then we can simply report the CG > > location in that system and the Euler angles and the model > > comes out looking fine. So, I think we can agree on > > something. > > What I'm proposing is that we don't have to agree to use the same point. > We just need to provide a way to correct for the difference. Here Here !!! Norman _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
