My only comment is i was perfectly happy with the behaviour of final glide in
5.2, everytime it predicted the final glides perfectly.
Storm in a teacup methinks!
Dave
> From: tangoei...@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 19:11:09 -0500
> To: m...@duempel.org
> CC: xcsoar-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Xcsoar-user] XCSoar 6.2.3 released
>
>
> On Nov 21, 2011, at 5:48 PM, Max Kellermann wrote:
>
> > On 2011/11/21 23:40, Evan Ludeman <tangoei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Sorry John, no sale. We need height relative to glide slope at a pilot
> >> selectable Mc setting for final glide. If that's being eliminated in
> >> preference wind dependent height of climb required, that's a poor
> >> choice.
> >
> > What XCSoar shows is not the height relative to the glide slope.
> >
> > What XCSoar shows is how much you need to climb to reach your goal.
> >
> > The height relative to the glide slope is a theoretical number that is
> > of no practical use for a glider, even if it might be appealing to
> > calculate it, and even if it gives you the illusion that it is useful.
> >
> > Max
> >
>
> I disagree, rather strongly.
>
> 30 miles out on final glide, 500' below glide slope, I am not looking for a
> thermal to center and circle in, I am looking for enroute lift to get up to a
> comfortable final glide. The height below glide slope is preferable to
> height required to climb (in circling). I'm rather astonished to find out
> about how XCS is doing these calculations, I didn't know this but in
> retrospect it does explain (perhaps) some of the discrepancies I have noted
> between XCS and my C-302/303. As previously noted, I always go with the
> 302/303 as primary reference for final glide.
>
> This whole conversation completely astonishes me. I never suspected that
> anyone doubted the utility of height relative to glide slope for final glide.
>
>
> It appears to me that there are some who are out to put "all the brains in
> the box". That's an interesting intellectual and software engineering
> challenge to be sure, but it's not what I am interested in. I am solely
> interested in aids to my situational awareness. I find height relative to
> glide slope to be such an aid. Height required to climb given an assumed
> thermal strength... not so much.
>
> -Evan
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
