Vivan Meazza wrote (in a CVS checkin):
> I've removed all the features that rely on the diff to YASim
> that I posted recently, I don't expect any reaction from Andy
> any time soon! I feel a bit inclined to remind him of his rant
> against Cygwin recently. I'm willing to be favourably
> surprised.

Good grief.  If you guys are going to snipe like this, at least keep
it out of the public record.  And try giving me more than 24 hours to
reply next time.  Easy stuff I can handle at work while I read the
mailing list, but some stuff requires that I get home and actually run
the simulator.

This is decidedly not a trivial patch*, and takes time to test.  No
one else reported trying it, so that means I need to manually load up
the engine definitions of every turbo/supercharged engine, verify that
the plane can't reach the non-physical regime, make sure the solver
still completes and that the parameters don't change too much, and
only *then* worry about what the new features mean (example: why is
there a "cutout" control?  Couldn't that be done more generally by
making the wastegate value settable?  Did the Hurricane even have a
wastegate?  What gadget the cutout lever control?)

* For one, I still hate the boost function that goes negative at high
  RPM, and am 60% sure it's going to hurt someone somewhere.  For
  another, it's clearly modelling a supercharger; it doesn't
  correspond well to turbocharger behavior, nor does it provide a sane
  migration path to a simulation engine that supports both in a
  general way (or splits them out into separate objects).

Now, of course, I am out of time before work and won't be able to work
on this more until tonight.  If you want to help me out, stuff like
this would be really useful:

+ Fit a boost function that is asymptotic in the high RPM regime and
  doesn't go negative.  More than anything else, this is what freaks
  me out the most about your patch.  We discussed a few earlier, for
  example.  Note that it can be piecewise: you don't need just one

+ Try the other turbo/supercharged aircraft in the command line solver
  and provide output for the before/after case to verify that nothing
  weird is going on.

+ Explain better why you want the new CUTOUT control and didn't just
  make the wastegate setting modifiable at runtime (which simplifies
  the engine model and seems more general, IMHO).

+ Convince other folks to try the changes and report success.

Just for the record: if this were an obvious fix or an
simple/orthogonal new feature, then I would just apply it like I apply
other fixes.  It is neither, which means (I'm sorry) we are both going
to have to do more work.  Pissing me off isn't helping.


Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to