13,255
edits
Talk:Scripted AI Objects: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The reason for not using the SI system is that US aeronautical engineering textbooks more often uses the Foot–pound–second system
mNo edit summary |
(The reason for not using the SI system is that US aeronautical engineering textbooks more often uses the Foot–pound–second system) |
||
| Line 242: | Line 242: | ||
:* I think there's really just 8-12 main base classes missing that can probably be prototyped by looking at existing use-cases (tanker.nas, fox2.nas. missile.nas) - once the code is sufficiently generic, I would hope to port those files to make them use the new framework, and then get aircraft developers involved to update their work accordingly. | :* I think there's really just 8-12 main base classes missing that can probably be prototyped by looking at existing use-cases (tanker.nas, fox2.nas. missile.nas) - once the code is sufficiently generic, I would hope to port those files to make them use the new framework, and then get aircraft developers involved to update their work accordingly. | ||
: --[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] ([[User talk:Hooray|talk]]) 17:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC) | : --[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] ([[User talk:Hooray|talk]]) 17:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
:: @5H1N0B1: About point d): I think the reason for not using the SI-system is that most formulas are laid out in the {{wikipedia|Foot–pound–second system#Pound-force as force unit|gravitational Foot–pound–second system}} in US aeronautical engineering textbooks (which are often used internationally in higher education and sometimes also are freely available). | |||
:: —[[User:Johan G|Johan G]] ([[User_talk:Johan_G|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Johan_G|contribs]]) 19:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC) | |||