Hi,
I am about to commit a change that adds anti windup logic to the pi-simple-
controller (FGPISimpleController) which currently lacks such functionality.
The FGPIDController has some anti windup logic but that controller does not
suit very well for some solutions and one might (I do) want to use the pi-
simple-controller instead, if this just had some anti windup.
My question is: should I add a switch to make the pi-simple-controller behave
like it currently does, e.g. add something like
<anti-windup>true</anti-windup>
and default that switch to 'false'?
This should be a good idea if some autopilots relied on wound up
PISimpleController. Or is it oversized backwards-compatibility?
I can't imagine a single case where wind-up is a good idea - but who knows...
Comments?
Torsten
BTW. the patch is really simple:
double output = prop_comp + int_sum;
- output = clamp( output );
- set_output_value( output );
+ double clamped_output = clamp( output );
+ if( output != clamped_output ) // anti-windup
+ int_sum = clamped_output - prop_comp;
+
+ set_output_value( clamped_output );
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
