If this is just flipping the sign why not just grep and fix all the aircraft in
CVS that specify incidence? I guess I don't understand the ritual. Maybe
there was more to this change that I'm just not aware of?
Best,
Jim
___
Flightgear-devel
Jim Wilson wrote:
If this is just flipping the sign why not just grep and fix all the aircraft in
CVS that specify incidence? I guess I don't understand the ritual. Maybe
there was more to this change that I'm just not aware of?
Most modelers (if not all) were unaware of this problem. Some
On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, Erik Hofman wrote:
Jim Wilson wrote:
If this is just flipping the sign why not just grep and fix all the
aircraft in CVS that specify incidence? I guess I don't understand the
ritual. Maybe there was more to this change that I'm just not aware of?
Most modelers (if not
Jim Wilson wrote:
If this is just flipping the sign why not just grep and fix all the aircraft in
CVS that specify incidence? I guess I don't understand the ritual. Maybe
there was more to this change that I'm just not aware of?
The big issue is that developers were actually specifying
Jim Wilwon wrote:
If this is just flipping the sign why not just grep and fix all
the aircraft in CVS that specify incidence?
The files in CVS (most of them -- the ones that weren't pre-fixed
for the 0.9.9 release) specify incidence as documented, not as it
was actually implemented in code. So
From: Erik Hofman
Jim Wilson wrote:
If this is just flipping the sign why not just grep and fix all the
aircraft in CVS that specify incidence? I guess I don't
understand the ritual. Maybe there was more to this change that I'm just not
aware of?
Most modelers (if not all) were
From: Andy Ross
unintended consequences. The old files were tuned for a broken
implementation, and may need some re-tuning for the fixed one.
Ah ok. I thought it was just an inverted sign on the configuration input.
Best,
Jim
___
