Alex Perry writes: > > David writes: > > I wonder if the casual users appreciate all the work we're doing to > > make the instruments less reliable. > > Don't you remember the massive amount of whingeing (a couple of years ago) > when I stuck all the compass turning errors onto the DG instrument ? > The simulated aluminium was just _raining_ out of the sky ...
I will still argue that the method used was and still is poor There are those who want 'steam' and those who don't Forcing BOGUS values into the ONLY autopilot wasa CRASS thing for 'Johnny come lately's' to do. IF you had built a NEW autopilot and left the old one as is I would have been one of the biggest proponents of 'steam', In stead you forced me to take an adversarial position which I still hold FWIW - I put a LOT of effort into getting the navigational parts of FGFS working this included a lot of 'gentle nudging' and a lot of code and I RESENT having been force to used COOKED variables when I might not always always want to. FYI there was a time when Curt and I were probably the only two people that understood at least 90% of the code and we spent a LOT of energy and time trying to teach and/or explain to others how it all worked. I certainly didn't do that expecting those whom we 'enlightned' to change the code such that it was nigh onto impossible to use it in ways that I wanted too. To sum up I think that the work that has been done to make the 'instruments' act like a C172 is fantastic but it SHOULD be an option and not 'the way' Norman _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
