Andy Ross said: > Jim Wilson wrote: > > My understanding is the agl should simply be the "fdm's altitude-ft" > > less the "ground elevation-ft directly under the aircraft". I'm not > > sure by your response if you are aware that the "agl" in > > altitude-agl is "above ground level". > > Of course. But the agl definition you posit is computable easily as a > simple subtraction. It is not acceptable for some applications > (cockpit altitude annunciators or a radar altimeter) which need to > have a "zero" point calibrated to the actual position of the touchdown > gear. > > 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. :)
Umm...I think it's all the same isn't it? It isn't like the ground is going to move under the FDM's altitude. Well maybe in the area around KSFO it could. But we could move that code to the FGEarthQuake class. :-) Best, Jim _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
