On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 17:20 +0100, Tobias Bieniek wrote: > 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. > I have to agree with Tobias.
If you've abandoned the task because of deteriorating weather and are now in survival mode for getting home, its normal where I fly to turn MC down to zero and head for home. If I do this I expect the FG computation to act exactly as it would at a higher MC setting - only difference being that your speed through still air would be the glider's best glide speed rather than the higher speed implied by cranking MC up. In this situation I'd expect to see the predicted arrival height getting lower if I have a headwind and am silly enough to be circling in lift so weak that the effect of being blown away from home is more significant that the achieved climb rate. Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
