On Sunday 25 Sep 2005 09:12, Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote:
On Wednesday 21 September 2005 15:23, Lee Elliott wrote:
The agl data can be pretty spiky due to terrain/scenery
artifacts and 3d buildings/structures and using a moving
average filter here reduces the influence of the spikes they
On Saturday 17 Sep 2005 15:43, Paul Kahler wrote:
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 04:41 +0100, Lee Elliott wrote:
Hello List,
I think there's a small bug in the moving-average filter in
...
xmlauto.cxx
else if (filterType == movingAverage)
{
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 04:41 +0100, Lee Elliott wrote:
Hello List,
I think there's a small bug in the moving-average filter in
...
xmlauto.cxx
else if (filterType == movingAverage)
{
output.push_front(output[0] +
(input[0] -
On Saturday 17 September 2005 16:43, Paul Kahler wrote:
I'm not trying to flame, but why would you be using a moving average
filter? That's the most complicated filter I've ever seen - it calls
other functions!
It calls some of the methods of the deque datatype.
I'm sorry! That's the
Lee Elliot:
Hello List,
I think there's a small bug in the moving-average filter in
xmlauto.cxx
I noticed that the output from it was always out a bit and
checking with a calculator showed that it seemed to be dividing
by the number of samples + 1 instead of just the number of
Done ...
Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote:
Lee Elliot:
Hello List,
I think there's a small bug in the moving-average filter in
xmlauto.cxx
I noticed that the output from it was always out a bit and
checking with a calculator showed that it seemed to be dividing
by the number of samples + 1
On Friday 16 Sep 2005 21:11, Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote:
Lee Elliot:
Hello List,
I think there's a small bug in the moving-average filter in
xmlauto.cxx
I noticed that the output from it was always out a bit and
checking with a calculator showed that it seemed to be
dividing by the
Hello List,
I think there's a small bug in the moving-average filter in
xmlauto.cxx
I noticed that the output from it was always out a bit and
checking with a calculator showed that it seemed to be dividing
by the number of samples + 1 instead of just the number of
samples.
subtracting 1
