On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:27 AM, leee wrote:
> I agree that windup == bad and antiwindup == good, and that in a
> perfect world no one would have leveraged windup and that everyone
> would have implemented their PI simple controllers correctly. The
> trouble is that It's not a perfect world.
>
Hi Lee,
You make an excellent point, however I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply in
this situation. Your example is apples to oranges from what we are talking
about here. Can we find (or even just imagine) a case where this would
break something? I can't myself. I don't want to argue just for the sake
of arguing. This fix is not changing behavior like the example you cite.
It just sets up guard rails to prevent us from going into an "ill- or
un-defined" zone of control theory that everyone recognizes is bad and not
useful. What is proposed is analogous to adding divide by zero or null
pointer reference protection -- nothing more than guard rails to keep us out
of bad areas we shouldn't be in anyway.
Regards,
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
