Andy Ross wrote:
This doesn't sound like a bad idea at all. It is something which isn't used very common (at least not that I am aware of) but there are several situations where common behaviour doesn't make sence :-)If you guys are thinking of changing the way we do "linear function of a property value" definitions in configurations, let me argue for a slightly different way to do it:The problem with specifying a multiplier (e.g. "scaling" or "rotation") and an offset is that these two opperations don't commute. Especially when coupled with a syntax that is order-independant (you can *specify* the scaling last, but it still happens first, or vice versa) it's a constant confusion for the user as to what the final result will be, with the end result that the generated configurations are hacked up balls of goo. Be honest everyone: how many people have ended up typing random values into things like this trying to get the results they expect? I know I have. Instead, why not specify a range mapping. That is, input values in the range [a,b] get mapped linearly to output values in the range [c,d]. Input values outside of [a,b] can be clamped to that range before computation. This has a few advantages:
Erik
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
