A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 3rd 12, 04:06 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
PCool
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

By the way,
http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xc...cpp?id=v6.2.6c
inside xcsoar 6.2 there is really a Horizon, and US RC require you to remove
that code even if unused, like we did.
Even if unused, the Horizon code is included by the Makefile
http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xc...ile?id=v6.2.6c

So the 6.2 version is not compliant to US RC rules.
Instead of trying to help people cheating, I suggest you release a
competition version of xcsoar too.

regards
paolo




"Max Kellermann" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Paul Remde wrote:
This implies that the AHRS is completely disabled and can't be
re-enabled for the 14 days.


What if I publish a proof-of-concept patch that adds a horizon to
LX8000 and others, circumventing this switch?

I think I can assemble one for LX8000/9000 (from LXNav) and the
upcoming LX Zeus (from LX Navigation) in a matter of a few days. It
will not be detectable without special equipment. And it will work
without the new AHRS hardware.

(Pilots interested in such an exploit may send me a private message)

If mainline XCSoar gets banned, I will demonstrate that most other
products must be banned, too. Better keep an old first-generation
electronic vario at hand when you attend a contest, to avoid surprises
;-)

I have already written a patch for LK8000 that pretends to be
"LKCOMPETITION" but doesn't actually disable the horizon:



  #2  
Old April 3rd 12, 04:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Max Kellermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 171
Default Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

PCool wrote:
So the 6.2 version is not compliant to US RC rules.
Instead of trying to help people cheating, I suggest you release a
competition version of xcsoar too.


Thanks for the nice suggestion, but I suggest you actually read and
understand the code before drawing (the wrong) conclusions.

Max
  #3  
Old April 3rd 12, 04:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
PCool
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

I did.
I could read:
This feature of having a backup artificial horizon based on inferred
orientation from GPS and vario data is useful, and reasonably well
tested, but has the issue of potentially invalidating use of XCSoar in
FAI contests due to rule ref Annex A to Section 3 (2010 Edition) 4.1.2
"No instruments permitting pilots to fly without visual reference to
the ground may be carried on board, even if made unserviceable." The
quality of XCSoar's pseudo-AH is arguably good enough that this
violates the rule. We need to seek clarification as to whether this
is the case or not.

And this feature is included in the 6.2, it does not matter if disabled or
enabled.
The US RC is requesting that such code is not inside the executable.



"Max Kellermann" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
PCool wrote:
So the 6.2 version is not compliant to US RC rules.
Instead of trying to help people cheating, I suggest you release a
competition version of xcsoar too.


Thanks for the nice suggestion, but I suggest you actually read and
understand the code before drawing (the wrong) conclusions.

Max

  #4  
Old April 3rd 12, 10:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tobias Bieniek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 74
Default Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

That is obviously wrong. The AH in 6.2 is bugged and will never be drawn even if the code exists to draw it... How can you prove that such code isn't included in WinPilot, SeeYou, Strepla, etc.?!
  #5  
Old April 4th 12, 02:06 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
PCool
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

So you are confirming that the Horizon code is in the 6.2 version.
You say it is bugged, but the code says the contrary:

Quoted from xcsoar code:
This feature of having a backup artificial horizon based on inferred
orientation from GPS and vario data is useful, and reasonably well
tested, but has the issue of potentially invalidating use of XCSoar in
FAI contests due to rule ref Annex A to Section 3 (2010 Edition) 4.1.2

And xcsoar already knew it was forbidden to use it.
US RC are asking you to remove that piece of code.
The 6.2 version is not US RC compliant, all of a sudden.

Let me add that it was not smart nor clever to come here declaring that it
is easy to cheat by adulterating other's software.
The only software proven to be invalid right now is xcsoar in fact, and
there is no need to adulterate it, because it comes out naturally invalid.

Winpilot, SeeYou, Stretpla, LK, LX8000... why are xcsoar developers
concerned only about what others are doing?
You cannot prove that these software have illegal code inside, but now
everyone know by xcsoar's own admission that Xcsoar has it.
Nice move.

paolo





"Tobias Bieniek" ha scritto nel messaggio
news:20728050.2799.1333488993408.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbex14...
That is obviously wrong. The AH in 6.2 is bugged and will never be drawn
even if the code exists to draw it... How can you prove that such code isn't
included in WinPilot, SeeYou, Strepla, etc.?!

  #6  
Old April 4th 12, 08:27 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Max Kellermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 171
Default Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

PCool wrote:
And xcsoar already knew it was forbidden to use it.
US RC are asking you to remove that piece of code.
The 6.2 version is not US RC compliant, all of a sudden.


According to your "logic", a photo of a horizon would be a violation
of the FAI Sporting Code, because ... it renders a horizon!


I know you're the guy who likes trolling around spreading FUD and
never answers objective questions when one starts the futile attempt
to question your FUD, but let me give you yet another chance to make a
fool of yourself:

Please explain how XCSoar 6.2 violates the FAI Sporting Code.

I mean, really explain. Not just the usual screaming out loud "but
there's a horizon renderer, don't you see!!!!!!11", really explain how
the code for rendering a horizon (without code that calculates the
horizon) depicts an instrument that allows the pilot to fly without
visual reference to the ground.

Max
  #7  
Old April 4th 12, 09:22 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Peter Scholz[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAVcomputers?

Am 04.04.2012 09:27, Max Kellermann wrote:
wrote:
And xcsoar already knew it was forbidden to use it.
US RC are asking you to remove that piece of code.
The 6.2 version is not US RC compliant, all of a sudden.


According to your "logic", a photo of a horizon would be a violation
of the FAI Sporting Code, because ... it renders a horizon!


I know you're the guy who likes trolling around spreading FUD and
never answers objective questions when one starts the futile attempt
to question your FUD, but let me give you yet another chance to make a
fool of yourself:

Please explain how XCSoar 6.2 violates the FAI Sporting Code.

I mean, really explain. Not just the usual screaming out loud "but
there's a horizon renderer, don't you see!!!!!!11", really explain how
the code for rendering a horizon (without code that calculates the
horizon) depicts an instrument that allows the pilot to fly without
visual reference to the ground.

Max


Max & Paolo,

I would like to ask you kindly, could you please move your personal
discussion off to a more private terrain. I guess you know how to reach
each other via E-Mail, there is no need to bother the whole r.a.s.
community with this rather special dialog.

I don't want a flame war like we had a couple of years ago.

Thank you for your cooperation.
--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE
  #8  
Old April 4th 12, 11:23 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Evan Ludeman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 484
Default Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

On Apr 4, 3:27*am, Max Kellermann wrote:
PCool wrote:
And xcsoar already knew it was forbidden to use it.
US RC are asking you to remove that piece of code.
The 6.2 version is not US RC compliant, all of a sudden.


According to your "logic", a photo of a horizon would be a violation
of the FAI Sporting Code, because ... it renders a horizon!

I know you're the guy who likes trolling around spreading FUD and
never answers objective questions when one starts the futile attempt
to question your FUD, but let me give you yet another chance to make a
fool of yourself:

*Please explain how XCSoar 6.2 violates the FAI Sporting Code.

I mean, really explain. *Not just the usual screaming out loud "but
there's a horizon renderer, don't you see!!!!!!11", really explain how
the code for rendering a horizon (without code that calculates the
horizon) depicts an instrument that allows the pilot to fly without
visual reference to the ground.

Max


It doesn't, of course. FWIW I loaded 6.3 onto a Samsung Galaxy Player
last night (w SS gyros & accelerometers) so I could show the RC the
silly little toylike display that is causing so much brouhaha... and
it's still broken, doesn't display at all.

XCS developers, please just take this annoying, troublesome, untested,
non-working TOY out of your otherwise excellent code and just leave it
out. It serves no useful purpose.

There are plenty of other android horizon type applications out there
that people can amuse themselves with should they choose to do so.

T8
  #9  
Old April 4th 12, 02:22 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Evan Ludeman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 484
Default Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

https://play.google.com/store/search...Horizon&c=apps

Works for me.

T8
  #10  
Old April 4th 12, 02:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 9:22:32 PM UTC-4, T8 wrote:
https://play.google.com/store/search...Horizon&c=apps

Works for me.

T8


Max! Why did you not use the special US rules icon! Please consider updating! Its priceless!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
U.S.A Rules Committee: We Didn't Mean It? SoarPoint Soaring 3 November 15th 10 02:06 PM
US Rules Poll and Rules Committee Election Ken Sorenson Soaring 0 December 1st 06 01:36 AM
SSA Rules Poll and Rules Committee Election Ken Sorenson Soaring 2 October 6th 06 03:27 PM
US Rules Committee Election and Rules Poll Ken Sorenson Soaring 1 September 27th 05 10:52 PM
FLASH! U.S.A. Rules Committee to Address Rules Complexity? SoarPoint Soaring 1 February 3rd 04 02:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.