Andy wrote > > > Martin Spott wrote: > > Jim Wilson wrote: > > > If the camera is tracking the nose, then it moves up and down as > > > well with the nose. This creates the _illusion_ that the rest of > > > the aircraft (and of the scene for that matter) is > moving, and the > > > nose is remaining stationary when in fact it is moving up > and down. > > > > You _might_ be right > > No, he is right. Really. This has been argued over before. I can > *assure* you that both FDMs do the mechanics correctly. > > The whole idea of "rotates around the C.G." is an > approximation anyway. The C.G. moves at runtime, and > translational accelerations and rotation couple; they simply > can't be modelled independently. >
I was only using the CofG (and approximately at that) as a better visual reference than the nose. I was only concerned to make things look right. I'm sure that the FDMs are quite correct, or the models wouldn't fly very well, if at all. I take it the CofG moves as fuel is consumed. Or is there something else? With intellectual curiosity. Vivian Meazza _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
