Might.
--
Jagg
Might.
--
Jagg
what I think you should separate between is the physics engine, and the
implementation of objects within the physics engine (F1 2000/F1 2000 CS
as out of the box being a good example of the discrepancy between the two).
Now, of course there are some inaccuracies when light bodies such as
detached wheels are being processed, as the timestep in calculations is
chosen small enough to handle larger objects such as planes, but it is
not small enough and goes into instabilities when the masses involved
are too light (which anyone who ever dealt with numerics will know what
I am talking about), but in the cases where it really matters, which is
the plane behaviour, I stand by my statement. And trust me, I do know my
Newtonian physics.
Let's take it to the other newsgroup, though, I think people here are
getting nervous, and besides, I wouldn't want to unleash scharmers in
here to wreak havoc amongst ususpecting racers ;)!
-Gregor
>> Hi, N... ahem, Jagg! :)
> BTW, you say SDOE has *the* best physics engine. While it is certainly
> a lively physics engine it is not all *that* realistic. We've been
> over this before, but I can call my good buddy scharmers up to join in
> and give some counterpoint if you like. :-)
> --
> Jagg
remove the caps in the address to reply
_______________________________________
OK, I sort of know what you mean. I will install SDOE (again) today
and try out that WWI plane pack. Last time I installed it I couldn't
get it to run in glide. If I put an older version of glide in the SDOE
root it should use that version and work fine, right?
No fear. Scharmers doesn't like racing games.
--
Jagg
J. P. Hovercraft
> >I dunno. When he said '(ch)air farce, I thought he was talking about
> >the wannabe pilots.. the simmers.. :)
> Maybe you're right. What a***head! :-)
> --
> Jagg