Hi, Interesting feature and discussion. I have a question.When I'm on a task and still have to reach an upwind turnpoint and a downwind finish, and I still need to get higher. Where does XCSoar assume I'll be circling for the required thermal gain value? On the upwind or downwind leg, or some combination? Of course, in general, I would try to do that on the downwind leg... Tibor On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 22:46, Ramy Yanetz <[email protected]> wrote: > Max, this is indeed a practical solution to give an option to decouple 302 MC > settings from XCSoar, and just set MC=0 in XCSoar. I already opened the > ticket requesting this, but while this will work for me I am concerns about > the rest of XCSoar users who don't read this and don't realize what a huge > difference MC zero vs 0.5 or 1 can make to their decisions with moderate > headwind. As I said, this almost caused me to turn around and land out in an > alternate field until I forced myself to ignore what xcsoar was telling me. I > had no way to know even after carefully reading the manual twice that all I > needed was to reduce mc to zero to get realistic number. I only figured it > out when replaying my flight later. > > Thanks, > > Ramy > > On Nov 22, 2011, at 10:57 PM, Max Kellermann <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2011/11/22 21:34, Ramy Yanetz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> And since 302 gives my audio STF command, there is no other way I can >>> easily make it to tell me to fly a little faster than tweaking the MC, and >>> since this in turns update the MC in XCSoar, hence we have this >>> discussion... >> >> So it boils down to: you want to have different MacCready settings in >> the CAI302 and XCSoar? >> >> I worked hard to make linking them possible, and it's pretty easy to >> disconnect them for those who don't want it. We have a ticket for >> that already, IIRC. >> >>> Max, we both use the same setup of 302/xcsoar, so I am curious how you >>> address this scenario of a marginal final glide at the end of the day into >>> a buoyant 20 knots headwind without causing XCSoar to assume that you plan >>> to climb and recalculate your arrival altitude. The only way to do it will >>> be perhaps to add bug factor but this is not what it was designed for and >>> takes more effort. MC is more intuitive. >> >> MacCready is only intuitive because you've been learning all your life >> to do it that way, because legacy computers (and of course the good >> old MacCready ring) can't do better. It was a kludge based on >> limitations of the tools we had. >> >> It's not an issue with a modern glide computer. XCSoar will consider >> the wind in all calculations, and one doesn't need to increase the >> MacCready/Bugs setting to account for head wind. >> >> On your question: I use AutoMC. >> >> Max > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
