Norman Vine said: > I hope that you take into consideration that that is a *very* expensive > function to call ! > > You might want to do a test to see how the its result varies from the > solutions that the FDM folks offered that are a direct assignment. > > Even if you don't use the FDM solution I would at least monitor it > and only do the geodetic solution when there was 'enough' change > in the FDM method to warrant computing a new value. > > Probably best to do a running average of the FDM value too so as > to 'smooth' it a little
Hmmm...yeah that is pretty heavy. Actually the geodetic method being used isn't very smooth either. In fact I would guess that since the lon/lat is the direct result of the FDM numbers, it might even be about the same. Since it is likely that the results are the same, and we have the distinct advantage over a real world GPS because we are running an FDM and have the velocities, why don't we just use the arctangent method in the gps code and save a few cycles? Best, Jim _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
