Hound dog departed

[bomber]

As I said, nasal is a cancer that needs cutting out.

Lets hope the Beaver knows about this place for when he gets his arse handed to him by the moderators/owner.

[bomber]

Bugman sarcastically wrote

Maybe you should be looking into new types of flight dynamics models using genetic algorithms instead

Ok what's this then, I might be interested in this..... "genetic algorithms".... sounds interesting.

[KL-666]

The dog bit the beaver again, while the Gunman of the keepers was busy caging the beaver instead of the dog. The Gunman should really put down the dog now quickly.

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=30606&p=296158#p296158

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

And the hound-dog is going bitey-bitey in the devel list too

https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/ma ... /35411493/

> It simply places the AI thermal models around the aircraft.
> Those AI Thermals provided the thermals for gliding long before Advanced
> Weather was born.
>
> So there are still people using Default Weather or Rembrandt it is
> simply an (and only) possibility to get thermals.

I wasn't commenting on whether AI thermals are a useful approach or not, I
was commenting that weather options of any kind should not be implemented
aircraft side but FGData side. That's a different question from whether
people use a feature or not or whether having a feature is a good idea or
not.

I understand the temptation for aircraft maintainers to do a quick hack
rather than go through a merge request, a possible discussion and an
iteration, but I still don't think it's a viable mode of operation.

*If* people judge the AI thermals around the plane useful (personally I do
not and think they're prone to create confusion for everyone not familiar
with how AW or BW works), *then* the tool should go to FGData.

If they're not useful, they should not appear anywhere.

But in neither case should they be with the airplane.

* Thorsten

[KL-666]

Oh my, the fray is attracting more dogs.

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=30606&p=296159#p296159

Can anyone point out the rude part in the original post Alant is barking about?

Kind regards, Vincent

[bomber]

I was just about to ask the same question..... Alan is rapidly turning into a rabid dog himself...

What's rude about it is that it's a challenge to something... whatever it be that someone has spent time on, to challenge the validity of it is deemed as rude !

what I find as rude is having your head so far up your arse that when someone makes a comment about an element of our hobby your first response is to call it rude and behave in an obnoxious manner.

This is why I'm glad to see Richard challenge my method of flight modelling, because I don't think it's rude for him to do so and I expect only improvements to both mine and his methods will be the outcome.

[Octal450]

I actually think Nasal is a good system. Once ou understand it, you can see how powerful it really is.

Josh

[KL-666]

Hi it0uchpods,

We are not discussing nasal here, but the right for Beaver to open a discussion about it, without rudely being told off by Thorsten in the second post of that thread.

Edit:
Maybe you can tip Beaver on that forum, that on this forum he will not be treated as a child?

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

I dont feel much about taking the conversation there, Josh. But Nasal is pretty rudimentary when you put it side-by-side with python.
I doubt there's anything you can do in nasal you couldn't possibly implement way better if FG could be python-scripted.

That's the central point of beaver's argument.

It is beyond if someone can or not comprehend and make nasal.
It is about the capabilities of each coding system. And here you are comparing top-tier language with some low-level chicken-scratch.

[Octal450]

Sorry. Just have time to skim the threads. Not home yet