Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim and documentation
On 10/05/2012 05:53 AM, Vivian Meazza wrote: Andy is still around, but inactive. It might be possible to run stuff by him once in a while. He even reads the mailing list (but not the forums) on occasion. :) Indeed, I'm busy with other things these days, but am still broadly happy to answer questions if posed (as long as I remember enough to come up with a meaningful answer). Just cc: me if you do, because my latencies here are measured in weeks. But I would in general worry about mucking about with such a critical part of FG, unless I was very sure about what I was doing. Bugs can always be fixed. What YASim needs is a maintainer, not really expertise per se. The latter comes from the former. Andy -- Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_sfd2d_oct ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim and documentation
Am 05.10.2012 12:53, schrieb James Turner: On 5 Oct 2012, at 11:32, Alexis Bory wrote: When you do that code reading (as I do it currently for the engines) it appears that at least some crucial parts are not such a woodoo and it appears that adding features to improve the FDM capabilities is not such a crazy idea. For that we would only need to understand precisely the whole existing system/code and document it, then design our features and get help from a C++ expert for the writing. We can do that. Just to say, there are some pending merge requests to add some Yasim features, but we have an issue that since none of the current C++ developers own, or are experts in Yasim, we're reluctant to be the person who merges such changes, and potentially introduces subtle regressions. Obviously this is chicken-and-egg, since no one can become expert enough in the code to become a maintainer :) I undestand your issues, but I believe Yasim suffers more from features not being added than from a breakage now and then. I remember some Yasim additions in the past that weren't persued anymore (e.g. work on the gear-Ground interaction, or more recent, the propeller feathering feature, which I would highly appreciate). So, I'm more than happy to apply patches *providing* I can be convinced they are sane+reasonable from a pure code perspective (happy to help with that, too, if people are new to C++), and providing we have some assurance that a representative sample of yasim aircraft are unchanged or improved by the patch. Suggestions for that means in practice, are most welcome! I'm afraid I can't comment on the C++ side, the only thing I can do is test the additions afterwards, or try to apply the patches. Otherwise I worry, given the nature of the solver, we'll keep optimising the solver for some aircraft, and making other existing aircraft worse - until someone tests them, and announced that they're no longer working. Well I think the solver does quite well in most cases, there are some features I like to have, like a means to adjust the propwash effect on the control surfaces, or the gain of stick forces with increasing speed and the aforementioned Propeller feathering. James -- Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim and documentation
On 5 Oct 2012, at 11:32, Alexis Bory wrote: When you do that code reading (as I do it currently for the engines) it appears that at least some crucial parts are not such a woodoo and it appears that adding features to improve the FDM capabilities is not such a crazy idea. For that we would only need to understand precisely the whole existing system/code and document it, then design our features and get help from a C++ expert for the writing. We can do that. Just to say, there are some pending merge requests to add some Yasim features, but we have an issue that since none of the current C++ developers own, or are experts in Yasim, we're reluctant to be the person who merges such changes, and potentially introduces subtle regressions. Obviously this is chicken-and-egg, since no one can become expert enough in the code to become a maintainer :) So, I'm more than happy to apply patches *providing* I can be convinced they are sane+reasonable from a pure code perspective (happy to help with that, too, if people are new to C++), and providing we have some assurance that a representative sample of yasim aircraft are unchanged or improved by the patch. Suggestions for that means in practice, are most welcome! Otherwise I worry, given the nature of the solver, we'll keep optimising the solver for some aircraft, and making other existing aircraft worse - until someone tests them, and announced that they're no longer working. James -- Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim and documentation
On 10/05/2012 12:53 PM, James Turner wrote: Otherwise I worry, given the nature of the solver, we'll keep optimising the solver for some aircraft, and making other existing aircraft worse - until someone tests them, and announced that they're no longer working. James Would it be possible to (automagically) create 'unit tests' from the aircrafts in the repo, create some kind of 'flight envelope' and test yasim changes against that? If it shows my ignorance re yasim or fg, I am sorry :) Edheldil -- Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim and documentation
James wrote, -Original Message- From: James Turner [mailto:zakal...@mac.com] Sent: 05 October 2012 11:54 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] YASim and documentation On 5 Oct 2012, at 11:32, Alexis Bory wrote: When you do that code reading (as I do it currently for the engines) it appears that at least some crucial parts are not such a woodoo and it appears that adding features to improve the FDM capabilities is not such a crazy idea. For that we would only need to understand precisely the whole existing system/code and document it, then design our features and get help from a C++ expert for the writing. We can do that. Just to say, there are some pending merge requests to add some Yasim features, but we have an issue that since none of the current C++ developers own, or are experts in Yasim, we're reluctant to be the person who merges such changes, and potentially introduces subtle regressions. Obviously this is chicken-and-egg, since no one can become expert enough in the code to become a maintainer :) So, I'm more than happy to apply patches *providing* I can be convinced they are sane+reasonable from a pure code perspective (happy to help with that, too, if people are new to C++), and providing we have some assurance that a representative sample of yasim aircraft are unchanged or improved by the patch. Suggestions for that means in practice, are most welcome! Otherwise I worry, given the nature of the solver, we'll keep optimising the solver for some aircraft, and making other existing aircraft worse - until someone tests them, and announced that they're no longer working. Andy is still around, but inactive. It might be possible to run stuff by him once in a while. But I would in general worry about mucking about with such a critical part of FG, unless I was very sure about what I was doing. Vivian -- Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
