> I just greped through the current CVS aircraft and found the following
> results:
>
> 51 Aircraft and the generic-autopilot uses the pi-simple-controller
>
> 49 of these aircraft and the generic-autopilot uses the
> pi-simple-controller with a Ki of zero aka P-only
>
> the remaining 2 Aircraf
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, leee wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Martin Spott wrote:
>> leee wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
That might provide some idea of how much of an issue this is,
though obviously doesn't address non-CVS aircraft.
>>>
>>> This is exactly th
leee wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Martin Spott wrote:
>> In a continuous process of improving FlightGear there's no point
>> in keeping an 'undesired' (or, in some cases even a buggy)
>> feature as being the default just because some unknown 3rd party
>> software _might_ depend on it.
>> If
> On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:55 PM, leee wrote:
> > > 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.
> > >
>
On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Martin Spott wrote:
> leee wrote:
> > On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> >> That might provide some idea of how much of an issue this is,
> >> though obviously doesn't address non-CVS aircraft.
> >
> > This is exactly the sort of think I'd hope to see at th
leee wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
>> That might provide some idea of how much of an issue this is,
>> though obviously doesn't address non-CVS aircraft.
> This is exactly the sort of think I'd hope to see at the end of the
> transition/notification period and just be
On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:55 PM, leee wrote:
> > 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
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:55 PM, leee wrote:
> 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
>
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
> > correct
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.
>
On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Curtis Olson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 7:50 AM, leee
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
>
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 7:50 AM, leee 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
On Tuesday 09 Mar 2010, Curtis Olson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am about to commit a change that adds anti windup logic to
> > the pi-simple- controller (FGPISimpleController) which
> > currently lacks such functionality.
> >
> > The FGPIDContr
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am about to commit a change that adds anti windup logic to the pi-simple-
> controller (FGPISimpleController) which currently lacks such functionality.
>
> The FGPIDController has some anti windup logic but that controller does not
Hi,
I am about to commit a change that adds anti windup logic to the pi-simple-
controller (FGPISimpleController) which currently lacks such functionality.
The FGPIDController has some anti windup logic but that controller does not
suit very well for some solutions and one might (I do) want to u
15 matches
Mail list logo
