* Thomas Förster -- Monday 11 February 2008: > At least I think conservative is the right term.
Oh, I didn't think that it was wrongly used. It's just that the decision was meant to be reasonable for the 9999 case based on logical considerations, and not the least on whether it would be (seen as) conservative. And I found the fact that a clear rendering bug is blamed on METAR or a "conservative" decision there annoying. But I like the idea to make an educated guess based on other METAR values, and I plan to implement that later today. I'll use a large set of stored METAR messages with specified (i.e. non-9999 or M*) visibility to see which elements (other than humidity) have a correlation with the visibility. BTW: the biggest numbers that I found were 110 miles (KMWN Mount Washington -- not in our DB -- but there's a KHIE Mount Washington Rgnl!?). (That's assuming that the 9000 km from HAAB were a mistake. ;-) m. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
