I am unable to use MSFS. Has someone checked whether they handle reversibles with a heuristic, or are you just guessing?
James Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > >On 20 Dec 2009, at 00:02, John Denker wrote: >> I was also informed [off list] that the code to make >> reversible ILSs usable had been "ignored" because it was >> "not good enough". That is not very informative, not >> very constructive. No clarification has been forthcoming >> as to what makes it "not good enough". > >The off-list discussion was with me, for the record, and I apologise to John >for being a bit glib, and then unresponsive - the last Saturday evening before >Christmas, is not the ideal time to be discussing such things. > >What I should have said is, I don't think John's patch is a reasonable fix to >the problem. Or rather, it fixes the major issue from John's perspective, >which is un-flyable missed segments, but replaces it with another problem >which I consider to be equally bad. (I would guess John will consider that my >issue is less serious than the one he is trying to fix, but that's where we >differ, I think). > >Anyway, my objection is that delegating the active runway to a user property >(or menu item) is abdicating a hard problem to the user, instead of actually >figuring out a 'good' solution. (Hence my glib 'not good enough' remark) It >makes sense in a live ATC context, or some other situations (eg an instructor >station), but for most users it's a confusing setting. For better or worse, >MSFS and X-Plane do *not* require such a piece of user interaction, and >therefore it is my position that we should not either. Clearly they have a >better heuristic than we do - what I would like is for someone to propose a >better heuristic. (My personal guess is that the heuristic will be based on >local surface winds, but who knows, as ever I am not a pilot) > >Aka 'figure out what the user wanted, and do it'. I know John alluded to ESP, >but I regard that as abdication - we simply need to try / think harder about a >workable heuristic, instead of abandoning the idea in favour of a setting. > >It could be argued that John's patch is an interim step (with the heuristic >being developed afterwards), and should be committed as is, but personally I >don't think that's the case, and hence I do not wish to be the person who >commits it to CVS - as I said off list, I'm only going to commit other >people's code to CVS if I can positively convince myself that I agree with the >design and code - any other stance would be untenable, really. > >Regards, >James > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community >Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support >A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy >Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers >http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev >_______________________________________________ >Flightgear-devel mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
