On 01/02/2009 02:05 AM, Torsten Dreyer wrote: >> I don't think a normalized voltage makes any sense. It should be real >> voltage in volts. Then the particular instruments should check for >> acceptable input voltage. I must be missing some point, what's wrong >> with this approach?
That proposal has since been modified to include jumpers. > Nothing is wrong with this approach, but :-) > the normalized, dimensionless > approach is a more general one. I agree that is correct in context; the normalized approach is somewhat more general than the voltage-or-bust approach. However ....... the normalized approach is much _less_ general than the jumper approach. Proof: The jumper approach includes the normalizes approach as a special case. If you want to design your aircraft to use 1.0 units as nominal, feel free to so so. Really. Just do it. The only thing that the jumper approach really needs is for you to set a jumper to tell other people what you have done. Asking aircraft designers to set one or two jumpers in the property tree doesn't seem unreasonably burdensome. This is the primary thing. ================== As a secondary, optional suggestion, it is also suggested that rather than writing 1.0 into the aircraft code as a magic number, it could be parameterized i.e. given a name such as "power::nominal". In general magic numbers are a Bad Thing and should be avoided. Parameterizing i.e. naming such things improves the readability, testability, maintainability, extensibility etc. of the code. Giving it a name does not inhibit you from setting nominal=1.0 Using nominal=1.0 is perfectly OK. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
