RE: [certi-dev] FlightGear simulation latency

[Gotthard, Petr]

Martin,

> Well, the physical meanings of acceleration and velocity (of an
> aircraft in particular) are pretty generic. So, if ASN are really
going
> to extend their FOM, the worst case would be (I suspect) that they're
> going to call different keywords.

The worst case is they use different units or different coordinates, but
the conversion is usually not much difficult.

> BTW, just for the sake of completeness, I understand that the RPR FOM
> very well allows to represent flaps or landing gear and lots of other
> stuff as an articulated part of an (aircraft) object - I think this is
> a DIS heritage. Did I miss anything relevant ?

Isn't that too complex? I'd prefer to just add a proprietary "on/off"
parameter like in ASN FOM. The level of standard compliancy would be the
same.


Petr