Andy Ross wrote:
Or as a compromise, make the property a threshold value.
Misalignments less than ~5 degrees (or whatever) are likely to be
problems with the input data, while larger variances probably
represent a real-world issue we want to simulate.
That seems like a reasonable compromise. For the short term anyway we need to balance the fact that many ILS approaches at many major airports are visibly off (versus all the other issues such this being intentional for some approaches.)
I think on a whole, the need to have the major approaches right on would outweigh a few oddball approaches, but a user setable threshold seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
At some point we could look at fixing this in the data, but with so many approaches, the first pass is going to have to be done in software anyway yielding the same short term result until people can go in and hand edit the data to fix the wierd cases.
I know this isn't going to be right for 100.0% of the approaches, but it should fix the obvious data inconsistancies at major airports, while leaving the approaches that are supposed to be significantly off alone. If an approach is supposed to be off center and < 5 degrees off, then this might be within the precision of the instruments anyway and they might not even notice??? (At least not until they hit that pole 15 miles out that's dead center with the runway.) :-)
Curtis Olson http://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/
FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org
Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel