> Right. In other words if the nose is the 3D model origin, it's "altitude" is > made that of the CG (as reported by JSBSim). The aircraft is angled up > for takeoff and the nose is way down near where the wheels should be and the > rest of the model is below the surface.
To throw another wrench into the mix, can you tell me if and/or how the camera works when the viewpoint is from inside the cabin (pilot eyepoint) - does that seem to work OK, now? ANd when viewing from a spotter plane, is this where the problem initially was discovered? > That's right. But if the choose the nose (which I now agree is the way to go) > and report the lon/lat/alt at that nose, then we'll be way ahead at least as > far as getting JSBsim and YASim in sync. > > You are right about the options. We could perhaps do the conversion on fg > side in the fginterface. Yes, I really think the nose/hub tip is the way to go, because it is very easily seen and requires few or no calculations. Norman proposes an alternative which I respectfully ask to disagree with, but I suppose the question should be asked of those who design the 3D models and the coders on the FGFS side who place the airplane in the scene. >From our side, we can provide the CG and euler angles, as we already do, and also another fixed point in the structural frame - preferably one that is commonly known, unambiguous, and readily visible on a 3-view. When determining a common structural reference point, keep in mind many different types of aircraft we simulate now, and may want to in the future. P-51, B-52, DC-3, A-4, F-5, A-6, F-117, P-38, Wright Flyer, Incom X-Wing (Interstellar fighter), a rocket of any kind ... Also, Andy: which point does YASim provide to FGFS? Is it the CG, or some other point? Jon
smime.p7s
Description: application/pkcs7-signature
