Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Instrumentation adf.cxx, 1.19, 1.20 dme.cxx, 1.19, 1.20 kr_87.cxx, 1.9, 1.10 marker_beacon.cxx, 1.14, 1.15 navradio.cxx, 1.30, 1.31 tacan.cx
On 25 Dec 2008, at 23:11, James Turner wrote: Remove all name and spatial queries from FGNavList. All remaining queries are by frequency (which makes sense), and use the FGPositioned spatial data if required. I just committed a slightly large re-factoring of the FGNavList code, which means we're well and truly using FGPositioned now. I've tested most things locally, and everything seems to be working as expected, but please be vigilant for regressions or strange behaviours in the next few weeks. If you think something isn't right (and has got worse since 1.9.0!) please let me know and I'll look into it ASAP. I spent ages yesterday testing the marker beacon code, before realising that the problem was data, not code - I was under the impression that *every* ILS/LOC approach defined all three beacons - I couldn't have been more wrong! What's the real-world situation here? James -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Instrumentation adf.cxx, 1.19, 1.20 dme.cxx, 1.19, 1.20 kr_87.cxx, 1.9, 1.10 marker_beacon.cxx, 1.14, 1.15 navradio.cxx, 1.30, 1.31 tacan.cx
On 12/25/2008 04:21 PM, James Turner asked: I was under the impression that *every* ILS/LOC approach defined all three beacons - I couldn't have been more wrong! What's the real-world situation here? Please ask a more specific question. Do you need to know something that's not in apt.dat? (Categories 7, 8, and 9.) Are there isolated disagreements between apt.dat and the ground truth? Or systematic disagreements? -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Instrumentation adf.cxx, 1.19, 1.20 dme.cxx, 1.19, 1.20 kr_87.cxx, 1.9, 1.10 marker_beacon.cxx, 1.14, 1.15 navradio.cxx, 1.30, 1.31 tacan.cx
On 25 Dec 2008, at 23:49, John Denker wrote: Please ask a more specific question. Do you need to know something that's not in apt.dat? (Categories 7, 8, and 9.) Are there isolated disagreements between apt.dat and the ground truth? Or systematic disagreements? Apologies for being vague. What I mean is, for example, EGPH has two ILS-equipped runways - 06 and 24, but no marker beacons defined at all. KSFO has some, but for example, 28L has an OM, while 2R has MM and IM, but no outer. (in nav.dat) I've just checked my SimCharts, and apparently neither EGPH approach plate includes any markers, so presumably the data is right, and the issue is entirely my fault, for thinking that marker beacons were a mandatory part of an ILS setup, when they are apparently installed on a case-by-case basis, and not necessarily as complete sets of OM/MM/ IM, which again I had naively assumed. James -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
