Rotation and Axis concept

[Guest codvir]

Hi All,I really did not understand the concept behind rotation and axis.what ever I do, I can not understand the concept.I am attaching little WORK XML code and some details. if you can understand why the AXIS value written as they written I will be more than glad to read it.why the AXIS is 9X57??????????????????????????77.000,77.000True9.000,57.000The backround is: 160X160The GS needle BMP is: 19X66Thanks to all

[Guest codvir]

Please Anyone???

[apollosmith 0]

I'm not certain what you're asking. But I'll try to answer what I think you're asking.The Axis element defines the rotation point for your needle. By default, the rotation point is the top-left of the needle image. You want it to rotate around the point where it would be attached or pinned to the rest of the gauge. In this case, it means that the needle image will rotate or pivot around a point 9 pixels FROM the top and 57 pixels FROM the left of the image. Because the position of the image is defined at 77, 77 this means that the top-left of the needle image will be 9 pixels up and 57 pixel to the left of this point OR the top left of the needle will be at X=68, Y=20 in your gauge.At least I think I'm explaining this right. :-)The Main Body Sections of the tutorial at http://fs2x.com/Tutorials.htm explains this quite well, though the syntax is for FS9.I'm still struggling to figure out why MS changed the basic syntax of so many of these elements from FS9 to FSX.

[taguilo 33]

>>At least I think I'm explaining this right. :-)>I think you did it quite right :-)>>I'm still struggling to figure out why MS changed the basic>syntax of so many of these elements from FS9 to FSX.I cannot find any other reason than to adapt the structure to its new ACE Editor. There is no other visible advantage whatsoever.Further more, I think it is a serious drawback for all the people which work with complex XML code and probably don't need to use the editor at all.Tom

[n4gix 4,947]

>I cannot find any other reason than to adapt the structure to>its new ACE Editor. There is no other visible advantage>whatsoever.>Further more, I think it is a serious drawback for all the>people which work with complex XML code and probably don't>need to use the editor at all.That is indeed correct. In this case, the tool dictated the DTD changes, which is rather bass-ackwards, IMNSHO... ;)Now the million dollar question is, will FSXI continue to support the original DTD, or will it - like the FS98 gauge header - become depecrated?

[javfn 0]

Hi!I just would like to say that I prefer the previous structure. I haven

[taguilo 33]

>>Now the million dollar question is, will FSXI continue to>support the original DTD, or will it - like the FS98 gauge>header - become depecrated?Bill, do you have any doubts? MS will go back to FS9 header, they are clever enough to HEAR my opinions!:-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lolTom

[beatle 0]

;)>>Close, but no cigar :->. Actually, we have a new module for handling all of our XML formatted files (SimProp), both the .XML and the .SPB binary versions. ACE was just the editor we came up with to make editing them easier (particularly the Dialog .XML/.SPB files, which I worked on quite a bit, the fact it can also do gauges and whatnot is mostly just a side benifit of it using the same SimProp code that FSX uses itself as its file IO engine). So we now have one app wide DTD for all of our XML files that's designed to be easier for a large group of programmers to maintain simultaneously (ie we don't actually have a DTD file, we build one sort of on the fly at build time from a number of input files that are maintained for use by various systems, so the mission folks can update their XML properties, the flight folks can update theirs, etc; without stomping on each others properties).

[Guest codvir]

THANK YOU ALL !!!!It seems that the concept is clear to me.THANK you apollosmith and of course to you all.