Hi Michael, I do understand your points, and I agree to some extent. However my personal use of the application is a little different and I would prefer the "Arrival Altitude" over the "Required Altitude". Since this is simply a matter of personal perference I would vote for making it configurable somehow. I can't confirm this right now, but I think we already offer different infoboxes for these two values, but reading the posts here I'm having the feeling that maybe those values aren't named and described properly. We don't offer the possibility to configure the labels on the map and the final glide bar yet, but there is a feature request on this and once we have finished all the other work we should have a look at this.
Since we all have real jobs too there is only so much time we can spend on improving XCSoar. My personal priority right now it getting my two loggers (Flarm and DX50) working with XCSoar, so that I can fully transition to Android/Dell Streak next season. Turbo 2011/11/22 Michael Brandon <mikezulubr...@gmail.com>: > Hi Turbo, > > Both your points are valid. > > 1) As I pointed out, when the conditions are tough, I'm not looking at my > PDA (which incidentally is why I've not found the thermal radar very > helpful), I'm working hard at climbing. Yes, if I kept looking at the PDA I > would know when I hit what XCSoar estimates is final glide, but why can't > XCSoar give me a realistic estimate in the first place? Remember, I'm a > simple chap - if I'm at 4,0000 ft and XCSoar says I need to climb 3,000 ft, > I'm going to make 7,000 ft my mental target and - assuming the thermal > doesn't weaken - see what XCSoar says when I get there, or at least, close > to there. > > 2) Again a fair comment. But what's better - me make an estimate of 1 knot > by way of the MacCready setting, actually achieve 2 knots, and have > XCSoar make a somewhat inaccurate estimate of my actual height below final > glide, or have XCSoar assume an *infinite* climb rate and thus give me a > quite inaccurate estimate? > > If XCSoar takes drift into account, the accuracy of its above/below final > glide calculations are governed by how accurately the MacCready setting > matches the actual climb rate achieved (and by the accuracy of the wind > estimates), but to my mind the real issue is not whether to use the > MacCready setting in above/below final glide calculations, but how > accurately you (or XCSoar) set the MacCready setting in the first place. > > Cheerio, Michael > On 22 November 2011 21:56, Tobias Bieniek <tobias.bien...@gmx.de> wrote: >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> these scenarios seem reasonable, but they have at least two flaws. >> >> 1) While circling you should monitor the final glide value. In your >> scenarios it seems like you take the value before circling, then >> circle and after circling for the amount of altitude that XCSoar told >> you before starting to circle you will stop. This is obviously not >> perfect and leads to the second more important problem. >> >> 2) Your scenarios only work if you would hit a thermal with the exact >> lift value that you had set as the MC value. If the MC value isn't >> fitting the additional amount of altitude that XCSoar predicted due to >> the wind drift is also wrong since the time you need to spend in the >> themal won't fit. >> >> Turbo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
