On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 17:39:58 -0500, David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Over all, I think it would be better if none of the FDMs trimmed > automatically. FlightGear, which provides the primary user > interface, is in a much better position to know when trimming is > required; for example, you do want to trim when an altitude and speed > are selected on the command line, but you do not want to trim when a > flight is being restored from a save file. If the FDMs simply retrim > for steady state when requested, we can make sure the request is > issued when needed. That should clean up the JSBSim/FlightGear > interface code a bit as well. ..I see 2 more or less fundamentally different cases here, fdm's internal to FG, and fdm's external to FG, where FG communicates externally over network, with several fdm's, or with standalone jsbsim instances and where FG "only" does visualization and "controls our own plane". ..what if _all_ fdm's are made external to FG, as in interfacing to the FG framework? (Yeah, I know, I ask way too late. ;-) ) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
