On Friday 06 May 2005 16:12, Martin Spott wrote: > Durk Talsma wrote: > > I would like to keep this check around a little longer, until I'm more > > convinced I got everything nailed down. If there are portability issues > > though, I don't see any strong reasons for keeping it. > > It's your decision. If you want to keep it, then let's add the Solaris > workaround as well, > > Martin.
I don't have a strong preference either way. Since it looks like your patch is pretty small, I'd say keep the finite check for now, until we have ironed out the bugs completely. (To give you a bit of a background: The original AI code was designed under the assumption that speeds would always be positive, which seems a reasonable assumption for aircraft :-). I added some cases with negative speed, to allow for on-ground push backs. I some cases, this could lead speeds to get down to zero, with some of the math (turn-radius, etc, etc), blowing up. The finite check is one that I added to see if things were still going as planned, because a non-zero check didn't always work. Cheers, Durk _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
