Csaba Halász > Hello! > > I have looked into tacan code when investigating a bug found by Nick. > >From the one-liner fix it grew to this massive patch. Here is what I > >did: > > Moved tacan parameters from carrier_nav.dat to the > appropriate model node in the property tree (eg. > /ai/models/carrier/navaids/tacan). > Implementation added to AIBase (could even make a different > class, say AIBaseWithTacan). Ideally, the values should come > from 3 places: i) the scenario, ii) the model and iii) the > network. Until iii) works I automatically set up a tacan > channel for mp aircraft with callsign MOBIL (the isTanker > flag was set based on this anyway.) While normally a > configuration file is preferable to hardcoding things, in > this case I think it is a bad choice to pollute the globals > with information needed by a hack. And nobody ever tweaked > these settings. > > Added support for tacan position offset from the model > position. For now I just put in a temporary solution that > should work OK for carriers (the only place where this is > used currently). I don't know how to properly add a > body-relative vector to the lat,lon,alt coordinates. > > I have changed the "channel-ID" to lower case in the scenario > xml and the property tree. A quick search didn't show > anything that used it, so hopefully nothing is broken. Just a > matter of personal preference, feel free to ignore. > > Also, code cleanups here and there. At least I think they are > cleanups :) The TACAN::update function could use some > optimization so that it does not update unchanged nodes. > > There is an indicated-ground-speed-kt property which seems to > hold the closing speed. Should it be the ground speed of the > selected target, or do we need a rename? In the second case, > we should also add a little integration or something to make > the values more stable. (Given that ETA is also calculated > from this, I think it is a misnomer.) > > With these changes theoretically it should be possible to > operate the tacan from the source aircraft in MP for example. > > Grab the patch from: > http://w3.enternet.hu/jester/fgfs/tacan-20070412.diff > > Now you can start telling me why this doesn't make any sense :) >
Doesn't make any sense to me - what bug are you trying to fix? TACAN works as is for AI and MP aircraft, and at the moment allows up to 3 of each, but it is trivial to increase that to any number you like, without recourse to hard coding. Why do you want to offset a TACAN position? Why on earth are you hard coding TACAN idents? Why limit the MP to only one tanker ident? What is wrong with the existing FLOLS and Parking Position Code? If you "don't know how to properly add a body-relative vector to the lat,lon,alt coordinates" don't muck with Mathias' code - he does know. I'm not persuaded by this - try to convince me that something is wrong with the existing code and its method, and while you are trying to do that, I will not accept hard coding TACAN channels for mobile transmitters, any more than I would for fixed sites. Vivian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
