On 01/05/2007 04:06 AM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> Less dirty and more correct should be:
> relocate to the position of the fix, grab the magnetic variation and
> calculate
> the transporter coordinates using bearing and distance. Relocate again to
> these coordinates. You can safely call this pos
> A dirty hack might be to relocate to the new position using the true
> bearing, reading the magnetic-variation property for the new position
> thereafter and relocate again using the new variation.
Less dirty and more correct should be:
relocate to the position of the fix, grab the magnetic vari
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, John Denker wrote:
*) I spelled out "deg". I tried putting the ° symbol in the
xml file, but it complained of a parse error. Using °
didn't work, either. Any suggestions on how to encode symbols?
Not directly an answer to you question but here's a tip that may be us
> That's a good point. I consider it a bug in what I've written.
> The canonical behavior is to use the magnetic deviation at the
> /reference/ point. Can somebody give me a hint how to obtain
> the deviation at the location of arbitrary navaids and airports?
The magnetic variation is calculated
On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 15:36 -0500, John Denker wrote:
> First, some background information. Suppose we are up in the air,
> 10 nm west of KXYZ airfield (which is colocated with the XYZ vortac).
> 1) If we were inbound to the field, I would report our position
> as 10 nm west, inbound on the
I found a way to make it do what I want. Here's my version
http://www.av8n.com/fly/fgfs/location-in-air.xml
and the diff against the cvs version:
http://www.av8n.com/fly/fgfs/location-in-air.diff
On 01/03/2007 05:19 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:
> Only if you are relocating to a nearby position.
On 1/3/07, John Denker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm coming at this from the perspective of an instrument flying
lesson. Being able to reposition the aircraft a few miles from
the initial approach fix saves a lot of time.
And that is a perspective we fully want to support and promote .
Th
On 01/03/2007 04:00 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:
> we do want this to work intuitively so I would welcome
> any changes to improve the in-air reposition dialog box.
:-)
> I think it makes a lot
> more sense to focus on the gui dialog box.
Agreed.
I'm coming at this from the perspective of an instr
On 1/3/07, John Denker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
First, some background information. Suppose we are up in the air,
10 nm west of KXYZ airfield (which is colocated with the XYZ vortac).
[snip]
To summarize: With rare exceptions, locations are specified using the
bearing /from/ the reference.
First, some background information. Suppose we are up in the air,
10 nm west of KXYZ airfield (which is colocated with the XYZ vortac).
1) If we were inbound to the field, I would report our position
as 10 nm west, inbound on the 090 radial.
2) If we were outbound from the field, I would
10 matches
Mail list logo
