> Which means: Ramy's criticism is irrelevant for that corner case, and
> there's no urge for adding a new feature for that.
Max, this corner case covers about 30% of my final glides, which are long final
glides at the end of the day into dying lift and headwind. No thermals are
expected (but are more than welcome :-)
As such, I like to set my 302 above zero as I explained in my other post,
without XCSoar telling me there is no way I am going to make it as a result.
Sure, I can set it to zero and just fly a little faster, and will do so until
we get the fix. But how many users knows and understand this? Based on this
thread, only few developers knew it, the rest were surprised, which means you
will mislead most XCSoar users until this is fixed. I think this is very urgent
to fix, and if my C++ skills were not so rusty I would have put everything
aside for a week immediately to fix this, which again make me appreciate the
fantastic work you developers are all doing, but sometime it is good to listen
to (constructive hopefully) criticism...
Thanks
Ramy
>________________________________
> From: Max Kellermann <m...@duempel.org>
>To: David Reitter <david.reit...@gmail.com>
>Cc: xcsoar-user@lists.sourceforge.net
>Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 12:33 PM
>Subject: Re: [Xcsoar-user] XCSoar 6.2.3 released
>
>On 2011/11/22 21:21, David Reitter <david.reit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It seems that users find the need to play "what if", and they manipulate MC
>> to do so (and for other wrong reasons, as you point out). So there's a
>> need to let them do that, is there not?
>
>Sure, you can edit the MacCready setting at any time, for any reason
>you like.
>
>> I mention a couple of things in my previous message. When I'm thermaling
>> and there is an average lift value, does XCSoar still assume MC as the lift
>> strength?
>
>Yes. But you may auto-copy average lift to MacCready setting by using
>the "Auto MC" option. That's what I always use when I fly, because I
>let XCSoar do what I'm too lazy to do manually.
>
>> When I'm on final glide at some speed, how do I figure out whether I can
>> glide to a target in current conditions at this or another speed? That's
>> where people change MC, and if you tell them not to (and you're right),
>> what's the alternative?
>
>There's no alternative currently - I said today in another email that
>I think XCSoar is setting a bad example here, and a feature is missing
>- John disagreed with that. I'm not 100% convinced, but I admit it
>might be a valid opinion.
>
>But, as long as your target is reachable with the "increased MacCready
>setting", XCSoar will not account for wind drift for theoretical
>future circling, because XCSoar will not assume any circling when you
>don't need it.
>
>Which means: Ramy's criticism is irrelevant for that corner case, and
>there's no urge for adding a new feature for that.
>
>Max
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
