SNIPJim Wilson wrote:
Hmmm...maybe reusability isn't the most important issue here. While I know
that there are many stock devices that are the same in different aircraft, it
almost seems that numerically, with the number aircraft we have modeled now,
the non-common instruments are (or should be) more frequent.
Actually, the opposite is true, at least for general aviation: almost
David
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
I read this to mean throttles, trim wheels, levers switches, yokes and such. I suppose that in less expensive aircraft these may be stock material used in the design of a plane, but I seem to see a lot of variation here in cockpit pictures of larger aircraft. I agree with you for basically anything with screws in the corners though.
I also think that all the attributes of a control or instrument, except it's placement, should be contained in a portable package, ie the .xml file, model and bitmaps. However, one of the things that can currently only be done in the control's model file is orientation. I think this is a mistake. Orientation, like placement, should be defined outside the xml for a given control. Otherwise, it is impossible to reuse a control unless you plan on doing it in the same orientation. It should be possible for the aircraft's model file to define a one-time transformation where you define the location of the instrument.
Another exception that might also be nice to have a way of passing parameters to included instruments so the instrument can do a one-time transformation on one of it's parts to adjust it's stall speed line, for instance, to the aircraft it is being installed in. I don't know how to implement this though.
Josh
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
