My apologies, I started to reply to Melchior's message earlier and lost it with a toddler induced crash of the xserver.
Actually after thinking about it, it seems to me that we don't need to have an update frequency setting for joytsicks (fixed or adjustable). Users can adjust the step sizes on individual buttons or axes in the xml file for the joystick. Adjusting step sizes without locking in an update frequency (even if adjustable) gives the most flexibility. If there is a further solution required it probably ought to be coming up with a way for end users to easily adjust the joystick configurations for their systems. Maybe a gui dialog with a save option would do the trick. Best, Jim Julian Foad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > * Jim Wilson -- Saturday 28 June 2003 23:02: > > > >>If I remember this patch correctly, the repeat frequency was hard coded. It > >>should be defined in a property, and eventually adjustable in a gui dialog for > >>controllers. Ideally at some point we could adjust sensitivity/repeat per > >>control (individual buttons or axes). But at a minimum that single value > >>should be a property. > > Melchior FRANZ wrote: > > So, in a joystick definition like the following > ... > > what do you want the step size (-0.02) be set for? For a 2.8GHz CPU, > > or for a 266MHz CPU? It will be too small for a slow one, but too > > much for a fast one. This has to be a cpu clock independent value. > > I think Jim is assuming that the binding is going to specify a rate of change of value with time (bananas per second) rather than a <step> amount. This would be sensible, but is NOT what we have at present, and not the way Melchior is thinking about it, hence the misunderstanding. > > Then (I think) Jim is saying that the frequency at which these values are updated should not be fixed, but should be adjustable by the user, so the user can get better _smoothness_ (but the same rate of change) when the platform is capable of it. Is that right, Jim? > > > But I'm really tired of this topic now and won't ever mention it > > again (except if people ask, why the joystick definition files that > > come with fgfs don't work on their computers, of course.) > > People aren't being deliberately obstructive. It's quite common for a misunderstanding like that to arise on a mailing list. > > I think what you are proposing is better than the way it is now. However, it should be easy to make it perfect. In your proposal, each binding specifies an amount of change per "step", and you fix the number of steps per second (which previously was varying, being faster on faster machines). The objections are that the smoothness of control operation is limited by this fixed step rate. Instead of that, have the binding specify the amount of change PER SECOND (i.e. the rate of change), and allow the number of steps per second to vary with machine power and load. At each step, the new value is calculated so that the control is moving at the specified rate: value += rate * delta_t. > > That would make the rate of change well defined, but the smoothness would be better on faster machines. I f Jim wants to control the update frequency he can then do so very easily. But the important thing to do first is to define the rate of change rather than the amount per undefined time "step". > _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
