On Nov 22, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Ramy Yanetz wrote: > > To make up for it, I (and I believe others) are using an empiric MC value, of > 5% of wind speed (roughly 0.5 knot up to 10 knots head wind, 1 knot for 20 > knots headwind, 1.5 for 30 knots and so forth). Yes, this is not 100% > accurate but seem to be close enough for all practical purpose.
And the problem is then that you have XCSoar take the same MC value (even though it doesn't mean the same thing), and then expect to be able to cross-validate the two instruments, expecting same, or at least commensurable predictions. That's a wrong assumption. Yes, you need to be able to play around with alternative speeds in XCSoar. But that issue is orthogonal to your expensive 302 forgetting about headwind. In a way, does "the real MC" make sense at all in final glide? I wonder why STF would be based on it in final glide mode?
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________ Xcsoar-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcsoar-user
