On Nov 22, 2011, at 4:06 PM, Andreas Pfaller wrote: > On Tuesday, November 22, 2011, David Reitter 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? > The can play with the MC setting however they like for "what if" scenarios. > I probably even makes sense. xcsoar will happily calculate an answer to that > "what if" scenarios. Depending on the input the answers may be extreme or > indicated as not achieveable, i.e. with low MC value and high headwind, where > older devices might give a nice looking number suiting the user which is > wrong.
If not achievable, why not show a message the moment MC is changed? "<WAYPOINT-NAME> needs MC>X due wind drift" (if the waypoint is not achievable at current MC settings due to wind drift). Besides I was referring to a "what if I flew speed Vx" scenario. Concretely, I would want to know the range of speeds that would allow me to get to my destination above minimum safe arrival altitude. There may be various reasons why people would want to fly faster or slower without circling, i.e., while still assuming MC=0.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
