I second that. I understand now it was changed sometime ago. This should be an
option, not a default behavior as it is completely inconsistent with any other
flight computer.
Ramy
On Nov 21, 2011, at 6:39 PM, Sascha Haffner <s_haff...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I very much appreciate the powerful features of the new solver - calculating
> tracks around territory etc. It also might be scientifically correct what
> John says, however the results are sometimes very difficult to understand and
> appear not plausible at first sight. This can confuse the pilot or at least
> add addtional load to his flying, while trying to make sense of the values
> instead of looking for a safe outlanding site.
>
> Therefore, I very much prefer the "old" solver, the one implemented in Vers.
> 6.0.10 I believe. Also, since most glide computers eg. LX series, work the
> old fashioned way the redundancy of having to separate computers e.g. XCSoar
> and LX5000 and comparing the results gets lots with the new solver.
> Since the discussion of using the new or the old solver boils down to
> personal and individual preferencies, I very much support the idea of Tobias
> and let the user decide, which solver to be used. It might also have the
> additional benefit of reducing CPU power for users of old HP PDAs, when
> selecting the old solver, of course at the drawback of not being able to
> consider territory or airspace in the AltDiffRequired.
>
> Cheers,
> Sascha
>
>
> Von: Tobias Bieniek <tobias.bien...@gmx.de>
> An: John Wharington <jwharing...@gmail.com>
> Cc: "xcsoar-user@lists.sourceforge.net" <xcsoar-user@lists.sourceforge.net>
> Gesendet: 17:20 Montag, 21.November 2011
> Betreff: Re: [Xcsoar-user] XCSoar 6.2.3 released
>
> You are right with your second point about the two airfields, but I
> think we should let the pilot figure this out. I guess I would have to
> agree that the time spent circling shouldn't be a factor. AFAIK no
> other software does it that way... As I mentioned earlier, we could
> make it configurable but I don't think that's really useful.
>
> Turbo
>
> 2011/11/21 John Wharington <jwharing...@gmail.com>:
> > We will have to agree to disagree on that.
> > Arrival altitude should indeed consider circling, and you should set a
> > reasonable MC value, if you are able to climb. If you don't expect to
> > be able to climb, then set MC=0.
> >
> > If conditions are such that climbing in weak lift makes an upwind
> > landing point effectively unreachable, this should be shown. If
> > downwind drift due to circling was not taken into account, then
> > two airfields just beyond pure glide range would look similarly
> > attractive even though in actuality, the downwind one will be much
> > more reachable at a low climb rate.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Ramy Yanetz <ryan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Arrival altitude should NEVER consider circling! I never heard of such
> >> theory. Arrival altitude should only consider polar, degradation, wind and
> >> MC, although it would be fine without considering MC at all. But trying to
> >> guess your climb and your drift while climbing is completely wrong. We are
> >> not trying to predict the future, we are trying to tell the pilot if he
> >> can safely reach an airport or how much he needs to climb.
> >>
> >> Ramy
> >>
> >> On Nov 21, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Tobias Bieniek <tobias.bien...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>> John, I think this is inconsistent behaviour... either if you can't
> >>> climb you shouldn't see the pure glide value, or if you have a MC
> >>> above 0 you shouldn't consider the wind effect while circling. Maybe
> >>> for internal calculations we should supply both values and let the
> >>> user decide what he wants to see.
> >>>
> >>> Turbo
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2011/11/21 John Wharington <jwharing...@gmail.com>:
> >>>> This is not a bug.
> >>>>
> >>>> At MC=0, you cannot climb, so the value reported (-500 feet) indicates
> >>>> you magically need to gain 500 feet in order to glide at MC=0.
> >>>>
> >>>> At MC=0.5, you are telling the computer you can climb, and with that
> >>>> headwind and a slow climb rate (0.5), you need to climb a lot more.
> >>>> In this case, the 500 feet isnt obtained magically, and so the height
> >>>> required takes the downwind drift from circling into account.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Ramy Yanetz <ryan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Arrival altitude was at MC =0 was something like -500 feet (500 feet
> >>>>> below glide) which was correct. However, With MC=0.5 it was -6000
> >>>>> feet!!! This is obviously a bug since the slight increase in MC will
> >>>>> never result in 5000 feet loss.
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
> >>>> contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
> >>>> security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
> >>>> data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
> >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Xcsoar-user mailing list
> >>>> Xcsoar-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcsoar-user
> >>>>
> >>
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
> contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
> security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
> data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> _______________________________________________
> Xcsoar-user mailing list
> Xcsoar-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcsoar-user
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
> contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
> security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
> data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> _______________________________________________
> Xcsoar-user mailing list
> Xcsoar-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcsoar-user
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
Xcsoar-user mailing list
Xcsoar-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcsoar-user
