> I'm happy to dumb down the existing AGL property, but we should pick a > new name for the "gear altitude" property, which is IMHO a much more > interesting value. > > We should also pick a coordinate origin to report it relative to. If > JSBSim is using the (moving) c.g., then we're both bugged. :) > > Andy
I'm not sure what reference the various avionics/instruments report altitude against. Those are "derived" values, anyhow, from a flight simulation standpoint. From an FDM point of view, CG is what the rigid body EOM naturally revolve around (in more ways than one). The "massaged" values need to be processed by systems on the FlightGear side, I think. Since the CG moves (as you point out, and as we discussed quite past the point of exhaustion over the past year), reporting the CG location as the authoritative "position" of the aircraft has its quirks, too. That was one of the reasons for suggesting the VRP (see the first issue of "Back of the Envelope, http://www.jsbsim.org/JSBSimNewsletter_1_1.pdf :-) I think this solution -- although some may argue it is also quirky -- has some merit. A way could be provided, though, to report *any* position that FlightGear might want from the FDM, I think. With that said, I don't have any magic-bullet solution. I'm all ears as far as better solutions. But, I wonder if this will (in practice) end up to be one of those situations where you just can't solve the problem elegantly. Jon _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
