Erik Hofman writes:
> I've worked on changing the sound code to use the FGCondition code, but
> I noticed the /surface-positions/flap-pos-norm propertie diesn;t get
> updated (JSBSim latest base c172).
No, I'm noticing the same problem. I'm not sure what broke.
All the best,
David
--
That's normal from JSBSim.
Is it causing you some difficulty?
--- Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> When checking the flap postions I notices they
> return to another
> postition then they came from:
>
> down: 0.0 --> 0.34 --> 0.68 --> 1.0
> up: 1.0 --> 0.66 --> 0.32
Tony Peden wrote:
> That's normal from JSBSim.
>
> Is it causing you some difficulty?
Well It's making it slightly difficult for the sound code.
But I saw YASim does the same.
I seem to remember this was {0.0 0.32 0.66 1.0} for both up and down.
Anyhow, I'll adjust the sound files for this.
E
Erik Hofman wrote:
> Well It's making it slightly difficult for the sound code. But I saw
> YASim does the same.
These numbers are actually generated by the panel code, not the FDM.
Both FDMs just seek the position to the specified control input. In
this case, the panel code adds or subtracts
Andy Ross wrote:
> Erik Hofman wrote:
> > Well It's making it slightly difficult for the sound code. But I saw
> > YASim does the same.
>
> These numbers are actually generated by the panel code, not the FDM.
> Both FDMs just seek the position to the specified control input. In
> this case, t
Erik Hofman wrote:
> I think we should define a fixed value for each flap position,
> otherwise every module looking at the value has to support (>0 &&
> <0.32 or >0.34 && <0.66 or >0.66 && <1.0)!
They do anyway. Many aircraft don't even have fixed flap stations; a
common homebuilt mechanism
--- Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andy Ross wrote:
> > Erik Hofman wrote:
> > > Well It's making it slightly difficult for the
> sound code. But I saw
> > > YASim does the same.
> >
> > These numbers are actually generated by the panel
> code, not the FDM.
> > Both FDMs just seek t
Erik Hofman writes:
> I think we should define a fixed value for each flap position, otherwise
> every module looking at the value has to support (>0 && <0.32 or >0.34
> && <0.66 or >0.66 && <1.0)!
How are you trying to use the information? There might be an easier
approach.
All the best
David Megginson wrote:
> Erik Hofman writes:
>
> > I think we should define a fixed value for each flap position, otherwise
> > every module looking at the value has to support (>0 && <0.32 or >0.34
> > && <0.66 or >0.66 && <1.0)!
>
> How are you trying to use the information? There might