Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Remove engine code that reads in position and orientation #559

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 7, 2022
Merged

Remove engine code that reads in position and orientation #559

merged 2 commits into from
Jan 7, 2022

Conversation

seanmcleod
Copy link
Member

As mentioned in #547 (comment) the engine position and orientation data is read in but isn't used, it's only the thruster's location and orientation that matter, which causes confusion.

bcoconni
bcoconni requested changes Jan 6, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@bcoconni bcoconni left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the PR.
I'd suggest using the method Element::ReadFrom in the warning messages to help the user locating the origin of the warnings.

src/models/propulsion/FGEngine.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/models/propulsion/FGEngine.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@bcoconni
Copy link
Member

bcoconni commented Jan 6, 2022

Also the test CheckScripts displays 10 times the warning message Engine location ignored, only thruster location is used. and 10 times the warning message Engine orientation ignored, only thruster orientation is used.. I guess we should remove these elements from our aircraft definitions in order to avoid confusion when users review our aircraft models as examples.

The changes I have suggested above for the C++ code of the PR should help locating these now useless elements <location> and <orientation>.

@seanmcleod
Copy link
Member Author

I guess we should remove these elements from our aircraft definitions in order to avoid confusion

Correct, I was planning on doing that next once this pull request is approved and merged in.

@bcoconni
Copy link
Member

bcoconni commented Jan 7, 2022

I guess we should remove these elements from our aircraft definitions in order to avoid confusion

Correct, I was planning on doing that next once this pull request is approved and merged in.

All right.

@bcoconni bcoconni merged commit fd1ff27 into JSBSim-Team:master Jan 7, 2022
bcoconni pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 7, 2022
@seanmcleod
Remove output of engine location and orientation. Only thruster count…
2bd60cf 
…s. (#561)

This is linked to the PR #559.
bcoconni pushed a commit to bcoconni/jsbsim that referenced this pull request Jan 9, 2022
@seanmcleod @bcoconni
Remove engine code that reads in position and orientation (JSBSim-Tea…
dc665cb 
…m#559)

The engine position and orientation data is read in but isn't used, it's only the thruster's location and orientation that matter, which causes confusion.
bcoconni pushed a commit to bcoconni/jsbsim that referenced this pull request Jan 9, 2022
@seanmcleod @bcoconni
Remove output of engine location and orientation. Only thruster count…
5a6a17c 
…s. (JSBSim-Team#561)

This is linked to the PR JSBSim-Team#559.
@seanmcleod seanmcleod mentioned this pull request Jan 21, 2022
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@bcoconni bcoconni bcoconni requested changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@seanmcleod @bcoconni