On Wednesday, November 23, 2011, Michael Schlotter wrote: > ... completely agree with what you have said. I -and everyone else I > know- use the MC setting as explained below. I find it a helpful tool, > and I don't care if it is theoretically incorrect. > > - I'm interested in thermal gain required to reach the finish when I am > on task. > - On final glide I want to know arrival height at my current MC setting > *if I don't stop to thermal*. > - For outlanding fields I want to know arrival height at safety MC > setting *if I don't stop to thermal*. > All of that you get in all versions of xcsoar. It is provided with any MC setting if you don't need to climb to even make it. Positive arrival heights are NOT effected at all. But I simply don't understand why anybody opposes CORRECT calculations when MC theory actually needs to be used (since you need to climb). Everbody seems to want to tune the MC setting so that the results meets pilot expectations and not reality.
Andreas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
