On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Curtis Olson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:27 AM, leee wrote: > > I agree that windup == bad and antiwindup == good, and that in > > a perfect world no one would have leveraged windup and that > > everyone would have implemented their PI simple controllers > > correctly. The trouble is that It's not a perfect world. > > Hi Lee, > > You make an excellent point, however I'm pretty sure it doesn't > apply in this situation. Your example is apples to oranges from > what we are talking about here. Can we find (or even just > imagine) a case where this would break something? I can't > myself. I don't want to argue just for the sake of arguing. > This fix is not changing behavior like the example you cite. It > just sets up guard rails to prevent us from going into an "ill- > or un-defined" zone of control theory that everyone recognizes is > bad and not useful. What is proposed is analogous to adding > divide by zero or null pointer reference protection -- nothing > more than guard rails to keep us out of bad areas we shouldn't be > in anyway. > > Regards, > > Curt.
There is always a risk associated with changing default behaviour and the bottom line is that there is no immediate need to do so, nor any overhead incurred by not doing so. This just seems like a commonsense policy to me, and was one of the factors that lead to me stopping work on FG. LeeE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
