On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 3:03 PM, James Turner wrote:
> I suspect there's lots of debate over decay functions - Torsten's
> computation is cheap and seems reasonable, but I'll let people with
> more aeronautical experience comment in detail.
>
> However, the use of random() in the existing code is much worse -
> ultimately some semi-random model would be nice, but that would random
> over much, much longer timer periods (hours or days) - the current
> code causes the dreaded 'strobing' of reception (and in the dme code
> as well), as the random() call is evaluated every update, i.e frame.
> Hence random seems plain wrong to me (despite being motivated by a
> worthwhile goal) so anything that replaces it with a stable decay
> function gets my vote.
Ok, I have committed this patch, we can always adjust the service volume
later.
Thanks, this is one thing that has been visually annoying for quite some
time.
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
