New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adapt special function "Instant Trim" to choose between sticks->subtrims or trims->subtrims #3300

Closed
lshems opened this Issue Feb 17, 2016 · 5 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@lshems

lshems commented Feb 17, 2016

When doing a maiden, sticks to subtrims is handy. But when doing minute adjustments for certain flight modes, especially on gliders, this is way to coarse.

It would be nice if you could send the trims to the subtrims instead, and clear the trims after the event, as you can from the servos menu.

It could be an option on the SF Instant Trim.

@kilrah

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kilrah

kilrah Feb 17, 2016

Member

No reason to do it in flight, if you need to be fine you can use the trim keys... I believe you already asked and was already told that...

Member

kilrah commented Feb 17, 2016

No reason to do it in flight, if you need to be fine you can use the trim keys... I believe you already asked and was already told that...

@lshems

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lshems

lshems Feb 17, 2016

No reason for you, for me there is. Never asked it before, and normally I don't let anybody tell me to do or do not do something, apart from my wife. I might listen to good advice though.

I'm sorry if I annoyed you, or if its to much trouble to respond with some respect. I know you told me to grow a skin. I have one.

lshems commented Feb 17, 2016

No reason for you, for me there is. Never asked it before, and normally I don't let anybody tell me to do or do not do something, apart from my wife. I might listen to good advice though.

I'm sorry if I annoyed you, or if its to much trouble to respond with some respect. I know you told me to grow a skin. I have one.

@lshems lshems closed this Feb 17, 2016

@kilrah

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kilrah

kilrah Feb 18, 2016

Member

OK, maybe it was someone else, sorry.

No reason for you, for me there is.

Then, for the 10th time - take the time to explain it in detail with usage examples, what can't you do with the current state, why it would be better than it is now!
What I understand from your short posting is:

  • You have done your maiden, maybe used the instant trim feature, then after landing used the trims->subtrim feature.
  • You go fly again, and want to do fine adjustments. Well, you've got the entire trim range at your disposal to simply trim normally, which if the adjustments are minute should be more than enough? Then after landing you may use the trims->subtrim function again.

So yes, from your description it seems useless, maybe a complement of info will change it, but... you should really know how it works by now, we shouldn't have to beg for the info we need every time... that is the bit that is annoying. If you want something try to think from our point of view, see why we might resist it, and back your case accordingly. "Yes I know I could do it that way, but it would be better to have a dedicated function for it because XYZ". If there is enough info we can understand you and discuss. With unsufficient info we have to try and interpret ourselves, maybe wrong, and the reply will just be the first feeling we have about it.

And for the record, there is no "sticks to subtrims" function in the first place - only "sticks to trims" (instant trim) and "trims to subtrims", for safety reasons (instant trims is thus constrained to 25% effect - unless you really want to take the risk and enable extended trims beforehand).

Member

kilrah commented Feb 18, 2016

OK, maybe it was someone else, sorry.

No reason for you, for me there is.

Then, for the 10th time - take the time to explain it in detail with usage examples, what can't you do with the current state, why it would be better than it is now!
What I understand from your short posting is:

  • You have done your maiden, maybe used the instant trim feature, then after landing used the trims->subtrim feature.
  • You go fly again, and want to do fine adjustments. Well, you've got the entire trim range at your disposal to simply trim normally, which if the adjustments are minute should be more than enough? Then after landing you may use the trims->subtrim function again.

So yes, from your description it seems useless, maybe a complement of info will change it, but... you should really know how it works by now, we shouldn't have to beg for the info we need every time... that is the bit that is annoying. If you want something try to think from our point of view, see why we might resist it, and back your case accordingly. "Yes I know I could do it that way, but it would be better to have a dedicated function for it because XYZ". If there is enough info we can understand you and discuss. With unsufficient info we have to try and interpret ourselves, maybe wrong, and the reply will just be the first feeling we have about it.

And for the record, there is no "sticks to subtrims" function in the first place - only "sticks to trims" (instant trim) and "trims to subtrims", for safety reasons (instant trims is thus constrained to 25% effect - unless you really want to take the risk and enable extended trims beforehand).

@lshems

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lshems

lshems Feb 18, 2016

Again, for the 10th time, you're considering every request that is already
possible in another way as suggested as useless.

True, if you have priorities to meet, those are not prio one. That doesn't
mean it's useless. That's just rude to say.

My general use case is to prevent ANY changes using the purely technical
standard opentx user interface , because people simply don't know how to
use it.

Your general use case is you don't care, people should learn it.

As said, that's your choice, but an ignorant one. Ignorant to all people
not as tech savvy as you are.

I will not stop posting ideas if I think they are useful to me. I will not
stop telling you you are rude and ignorant, if I feel so. I will not stop
trying to convince you to take requests into account that will improve
usability, even if it can already be done in another way.

Still trying to help make opentx a better system,

Guido
Op 18-feb.-2016 06:12 schreef "Andre Bernet" notifications@github.com het
volgende:

OK, maybe it was someone else, sorry.

No reason for you, for me there is.

Then, for the 10th time - take the time to explain it in detail with
usage examples, why it would be better than it is now!
What I understand from your short posting is:

  • You have done your maiden, maybe used the instant trim feature, then
    after landing used the trims->subtrim feature.
  • You go fly again, and want to do fine adjustments. Well, you've got
    the entire trim range at your disposal to simply trim normally, which if
    the adjustments are minute should be more than enough? Then after landing
    you may use the trims->subtrim function again.

So yes, from your description it seems useless, but... maybe a complement
of info will change it.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#3300 (comment).

lshems commented Feb 18, 2016

Again, for the 10th time, you're considering every request that is already
possible in another way as suggested as useless.

True, if you have priorities to meet, those are not prio one. That doesn't
mean it's useless. That's just rude to say.

My general use case is to prevent ANY changes using the purely technical
standard opentx user interface , because people simply don't know how to
use it.

Your general use case is you don't care, people should learn it.

As said, that's your choice, but an ignorant one. Ignorant to all people
not as tech savvy as you are.

I will not stop posting ideas if I think they are useful to me. I will not
stop telling you you are rude and ignorant, if I feel so. I will not stop
trying to convince you to take requests into account that will improve
usability, even if it can already be done in another way.

Still trying to help make opentx a better system,

Guido
Op 18-feb.-2016 06:12 schreef "Andre Bernet" notifications@github.com het
volgende:

OK, maybe it was someone else, sorry.

No reason for you, for me there is.

Then, for the 10th time - take the time to explain it in detail with
usage examples, why it would be better than it is now!
What I understand from your short posting is:

  • You have done your maiden, maybe used the instant trim feature, then
    after landing used the trims->subtrim feature.
  • You go fly again, and want to do fine adjustments. Well, you've got
    the entire trim range at your disposal to simply trim normally, which if
    the adjustments are minute should be more than enough? Then after landing
    you may use the trims->subtrim function again.

So yes, from your description it seems useless, but... maybe a complement
of info will change it.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#3300 (comment).

@kilrah

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kilrah

kilrah Feb 18, 2016

Member

I will not stop posting ideas if I think they are useful to me.

I never asked you to stop posting ideas, they're welcome, BUT be clear about them.

My general use case is to prevent ANY changes using the purely technical standard opentx user interface

OK perfect, that's all I wanted to know! Now I know what your goal is with that ticket. Was it that hard? Had you put that in your first post you wouldn't have had that response.

I spent 2 hours a couple of weeks ago in #3263 (comment) to explain you that we needed to know the broader context for your proposals and not just scattered small issues we can't understand why you'd want them and where they would fit on their own, and you seemed to have understood, especially given that you had precisely been asking us about the same thing.

Now you do just the same and didn't improve your way to present your suggestions a single bit, so yeah I'll get annoyed since I obviously completely wasted my time.

You know we aren't going to change the fundamentals of OpenTX, and that everything we do is going further in the same direction we've always been going. You thus know that when you ask for something we'll look at it from the point of view of how things are done in OpenTX, and this issue makes no sense seen from that perspective given that we already have a perfectly good way of doing that, that fits the OpenTX paradigm. If your request is to be seen differently from what we usually see things or is about going in another direction, you have to mention it.

Then this doesn't seem like a good way to achieve what you want - IMO given that the instant trim needs to be configured in an SF that needs interaction with the OpenTX UI - or you do it in a script. If you do it in a script, it would make more sense to ask for the trims->subtrim to be made available to scripts so you can invoke it from your custom UI...

Still trying to help make opentx a better system

To me the system you want has nothing to do with OpenTX and is not "better" or "worse", it is just different. As such it should be a completely different project with different goals, a different philosophy, different people, a different target audience i.e. while your ideas are good in their context they're pitched at the wrong place. Trying to somehow blend 2 things with completely opposite goals just causes everybody to lose their time. You'll continue to present ideas that are good in your vision of things and with your goals in mind but they'll continue ending up in /dev/null because they go against ours. You'd be better off creating something dedicated to your goals.

Member

kilrah commented Feb 18, 2016

I will not stop posting ideas if I think they are useful to me.

I never asked you to stop posting ideas, they're welcome, BUT be clear about them.

My general use case is to prevent ANY changes using the purely technical standard opentx user interface

OK perfect, that's all I wanted to know! Now I know what your goal is with that ticket. Was it that hard? Had you put that in your first post you wouldn't have had that response.

I spent 2 hours a couple of weeks ago in #3263 (comment) to explain you that we needed to know the broader context for your proposals and not just scattered small issues we can't understand why you'd want them and where they would fit on their own, and you seemed to have understood, especially given that you had precisely been asking us about the same thing.

Now you do just the same and didn't improve your way to present your suggestions a single bit, so yeah I'll get annoyed since I obviously completely wasted my time.

You know we aren't going to change the fundamentals of OpenTX, and that everything we do is going further in the same direction we've always been going. You thus know that when you ask for something we'll look at it from the point of view of how things are done in OpenTX, and this issue makes no sense seen from that perspective given that we already have a perfectly good way of doing that, that fits the OpenTX paradigm. If your request is to be seen differently from what we usually see things or is about going in another direction, you have to mention it.

Then this doesn't seem like a good way to achieve what you want - IMO given that the instant trim needs to be configured in an SF that needs interaction with the OpenTX UI - or you do it in a script. If you do it in a script, it would make more sense to ask for the trims->subtrim to be made available to scripts so you can invoke it from your custom UI...

Still trying to help make opentx a better system

To me the system you want has nothing to do with OpenTX and is not "better" or "worse", it is just different. As such it should be a completely different project with different goals, a different philosophy, different people, a different target audience i.e. while your ideas are good in their context they're pitched at the wrong place. Trying to somehow blend 2 things with completely opposite goals just causes everybody to lose their time. You'll continue to present ideas that are good in your vision of things and with your goals in mind but they'll continue ending up in /dev/null because they go against ours. You'd be better off creating something dedicated to your goals.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment