Quote Originally Posted by jdarling
(...) You actually need the uplift for each of the 4 (in a typical aircraft) primary lift surfaces (call them wings) and single vertical lift surface (tail in most planes). NOTE: I'm talking VERY general/generic here. With this information you don't have to worry about rotation as your matrix will rotate itself based on the force calculations.

To modify the rotation you modify the lift vectors (ailerons, rudder values, etc) of the lift surfaces thus changing the forces on the body. This change in forces will provide you with a good approx of the rotational values.
I actually knew it but I consciously decided to remove it from the equation with the idea of make it easer for users. Let me explain.

Imagine a flight simulator that allows to add new planes just adding a 3D model description and a file that describe their "physics". If this plane actually exists an user may dive in Internet or a library to find the characteristics, but may be he/she wants to add a non-real plane (i.e. a ship from his/her favorite sci-fi world, or the legendary F-19 ). Providing the "lift vectors" will make it hard to "calibrate" in any case but specially if plane "doesn't exists". My idea was that using "rotation factors" instead of actual forces it would be easer.

BTW I have no idea how to rotate a matrix applying a vector (but I know how to apply a transformation matrix to a vector ).

[edit] I'm reading the IOCCC code you linked... Impressive!

Quote Originally Posted by grudzio
Sorry for not being more constructive, but I am much better at plain physics then aerodynamics.
On the contrary, I find your comment very useful. If I have time I'll try to update the document this night.

But I don't understand your suggestion about "divide the left hand side by mass since on the right you have acceleration and on the left forces". Isn't mass in the M vector enough? And isn't force the same than (or equivalent to) acceleration? (You see I have very limited knowledge about physics. ).