On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 7:50 AM, leee <l...@spatial.plus.com> wrote:
> As this would be a new feature, and one which might affect existing
> behaviours, I _really_ think it ought to be off by default.
>
I really can't imagine any sane system that is designed to leverage windup
as a feature. It's like closing your eyes and driving off the road.
Anti-windup is a bit like adding guard rails to the road.
> Turning it on by default is almost guaranteed to break something,
> whereas because it is new nothing will be currently using it - this
> just seems a bit silly to me.
>
windup == bad
antiwindup == good
In a lot of ways this is like a bug fix. So if implemented correctly, I
really can't imagine any way it could break anything. This only affects the
simple PI controller (which is brutally crude anyway.) The more advanced
PID controller which is used for most complex stage in most autopilots
already has anti-windup built into it's algorithm and we aren't touching
that.
Best regards,
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
