Is it possible to make all measurements in ONE SYSTEM ???

[JEFX]

I find it quite disturbing (in the ME) to make a flight plan in feet and NM and knots, then when I look at the summary of my flight (sigma symbol) I get a summary in meters and KM/h, then, if I want to measure anything on the map, I use the ruler and it is in meters as well, and finally, when planning the weather, it is also in metric... but when one puts the mouse somwhere on the map, if you look in the lower left ALT field of the map legend, the location of your cursor is in ... feet.

 

FInally, the whole flight experience in the Hog is in imperial... I find myself constantly having to translate km in NM, not that it is difficult, but it would be really normal that, when in OPTIONS we dial IMPERIAL, it is granted that it is for the whole experience non?

 

thaJEFXnks

[wriley]

+1

 

This is very confusing.

[JS]

Yes, totally agree. You should be able to choose what system to use, and then EVERYTHING (including cockpit gauges) should be using that system.

[effte]

Yes, totally agree. You should be able to choose what system to use, and then EVERYTHING (including cockpit gauges) should be using that system.

 

Everything except the aircraft... which only comes in one flavour. It'd be painful to see an aircraft modelled to that degree of detail have non-authentic gauges tacked on.

[JS]

Better than having to use a calculator every time you look at the gauges.

[GGTharos]

You'll get used to it in no time.

 

Better than having to use a calculator every time you look at the gauges.

[PlainSight]

US aircraft uses imperial units, what bothers me is that aircraft weight in ME is displayed in metric. There should be an imperial conversion, because the performance charts and gauges are all in imperial.

[slug88]

Better than having to use a calculator every time you look at the gauges.

 

I disagree. Better to have an authentic cockpit model.

 

But I agree with everyone else regarding the ME; it should all be based on the measurement system selected in options.

[aaron886]

US aircraft uses imperial units, what bothers me is that aircraft weight in ME is displayed in metric. There should be an imperial conversion, because the performance charts and gauges are all in imperial.

 

+1... terribly annoying little thing.

[Jona33]

On BS the altitude at the bottom of the screen is metres (in the ME) and when you try to set a Units altitude higher/lower than trigger that's in feet and I'm awful at metre/feet conversions.

[Shinigami]

Everything except the aircraft... which only comes in one flavour. It'd be painful to see an aircraft modelled to that degree of detail have non-authentic gauges tacked on.

 

You know that wen you purchase the aircraft you get to chose the measuring system to use so I want the metric one over the inch so both for me.

 

+1

[Shinigami]

Also for me the metric system is much simpler to use; example: for converting from a unit to another you just have to multiply by 10 or 100 or 1000 is only zeros. The inch system is a pain in arss but some people are get used to it.

 

So both including gauges and charts

[EtherealN]

The solution is for you silly yankees to finally convert to a proper set of metering units. :D

[effte]

You know that wen you purchase the aircraft you get to chose the measuring system to use so I want the metric one over the inch so both for me.

 

You also get to have the manufacturer e g install different engines, a different avionics suite, add sensors etc etc. Let's have the Canadian or Finnish Super A-10E with 30% more thrust, full glass panel, IR-OTIS and metric altitude!:thumbup:

 

Or should we perhaps stick with simulating existing aircraft?

 

(BTW, my air force use both systems now, after having been all metric. No problems. I've flown and navigated in both mph/m and knots/ft myself, and can't say I'm much bothered converting. Same type with different unit gauges - that's when it'd get a wee bit interesting.)

[Frederf]

I'm fine with the default ME units being metric in fact I prefer it. Two or more modules are going to come together and need a common basis. Also metric is a better basis to program in.

 

However, the ME and other parts of the UI need these features consistently:

1. Label the unit used - There's no excuse to see ALT 60 in the F10 map. 60 what? Add a little ' or m after the number please.

 

2. Allow entry in both systems - On altitude field for a waypoint let me type in "3000m" or "10000 ft" and have the conversion done.

 

3. Display in both systems - Ruler could stand feet, meters, nautical miles true and magnetic heading all displayed at once. The F10/ME map could dual-display or have a way to quickly toggle systems in a lot of places. Why not "ALT 30m 98'" on the F10 map?

[Frostiken]

Also for me the metric system is much simpler to use; example: for converting from a unit to another you just have to multiply by 10 or 100 or 1000 is only zeros. The inch system is a pain in arss but some people are get used to it.

 

Actually that's illogical. A kilometer isn't a separate unit, it literally means '1000 meters'. To that end, metric isn't converting anything, you just measure *everything* in a single unit and only use 'kilo-' and 'mega-' to stop from having to use an assload of zeros. To that extent, instead of 12,000 feet altitude, say 12 kilofeet :D Metric-using countries themselves are something of a laugh because they still say '1,400 kilometers' instead of '1.4 megameters'.

 

Keep in mind that the 'meter' itself is a ridiculous, ambiguously meaningless unit of measurement itself :) If you wanted a real measurement system, you would measure distance in the Planck scale :D

 

I won't argue the whole C/F thing though, you win that one.

 

Anyway, yes, huge +1 to imperial ME. Or at least a setting somewhere!

Edited April 27, 2011 by Frostiken

[Shinigami]

Actually that's illogical. A kilometer isn't a separate unit, it literally means '1000 meters'. To that end, metric isn't converting anything, you just measure *everything* in a single unit and only use 'kilo-' and 'mega-' to stop from having to use an assload of zeros. To that extent, instead of 12,000 feet altitude, say 12 kilofeet :D Metric-using countries themselves are something of a laugh because they still say '1,400 kilometers' instead of '1.4 megameters'.

 

Keep in mind that the 'meter' itself is a ridiculous, ambiguously meaningless unit of measurement itself :) If you wanted a real measurement system, you would measure distance in the Planck scale :D

 

I won't argue the whole C/F thing though, you win that one.

 

Anyway, yes, huge +1 to imperial ME. Or at least a setting somewhere!

 

Were are from??? Mars dude??? cause the Metric system is the most accurate one and more easy to use try converting a yard to a inch to see sheat-hole get into .

[genbrien]

The solution is for you silly yankees to finally convert to a proper set of metering units. :D

 

Canada is quite f*cked up....:music_whistling:

 

In the air it's kt,nm and ft.... but degrees in celcius.

On the ground it's km/h,km... but hp and ft-lbs

We have other things like that :D

[Frostiken]

England uses the Imperial system for almost everything as well, whereas for temperature they alternate freely between F and C... all things considered at least the US has made up its mind ;)

 

Really, Metric isn't "all that". A meter is an ambiguous unit of measurement for distance, and a kilometer just means '1000 meters'. Since the aircraft measures altitude in feet and not miles (which would be agreeably absurd), 10,000 feet = 10 kilofeet = :D What gets me is how metric is talked up for its 'conversions', but if you ask an Aussie how far you have to drive to get somewhere, they'll tell you "1,xxx kilometers" and not "1.xxx megameters".

 

Thing is that Metric users seem to believe that in the Imperial system you have to do conversions - you don't. If a target is 2nm away, it's 2nm away. Knowing how far that is in miles or feet is useless. It's 2nm away. A foot is a foot, a mile is a mile, and a nautical mile is a nautical mile. You should never have to convert anything.

 

In my world, distance would be measured in the only scientifically accurate 'true' distance - the planck length :)

Edited April 30, 2011 by Frostiken

[JS]

Metric is easier, because it's always based on 10. 1 meter is 10 decimeters, 100 centimeters and 1000 millimeters.

 

But 1 yard for instance is 3 feet, and it is 36 inches. It's not consistent and that makes it overly complicated. Metric is a much better system.

[Frostiken]

Metric is easier, because it's always based on 10. 1 meter is 10 decimeters, 100 centimeters and 1000 millimeters.

 

But 1 yard for instance is 3 feet, and it is 36 inches. It's not consistent and that makes it overly complicated. Metric is a much better system.

 

Apparently you metric guys just don't get it :) Let's try this: Think about how far a meter is. Let's say you had to explain to an alien (who has his own system of measurement that you don't understand) how far a meter is without actually showing him. What would you say? You would have to use a universal constant, ie: the speed of light in a vacuum, at which point you would have to use, as JS put it, an 'overly complicated' conversion that is 'not consistent'. What does 1/299,792,458th of a second have to do with anything? If a meter were truly a 'universal' system of measurement, wouldn't it make more sense to define a meter as "the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/100,000,000th or 1/10,000,000,000th of a second"?

 

To compare, light travels one foot in 1/983,571,056th of a second. That is just as much a bullshit number as 1/299,792,568th!

 

My point is this: A meter is nothing special. The only reason you 'get' meters is because you've been ingrained with the understanding of just how far a meter is in regards to spatial distance. Likewise, when a scientists talks about lightyears, he doesn't expect you to calculate the relationship between a lightyear and a meter in your head - you simply have to understand the spatial distance of a lightyear: the distance in a vacuum that light travels in a year. The same goes for other spatial distances that far exceed that of a single meter - for example, one AU. Because for most people, numbers become meaningless when they're very large. What's easier to understand - "The Andromeda Galaxy is 2.5 million LY away", or "The Andromeda Galaxy is 23,651,321,000,000,000,000,000 meters away!"

 

When it comes to the Imperial system, you should never have to actually convert anything. Nobody will say 'take your aircraft to 152,900 inches AGL!'.

 

A foot is a foot. It corresponds to a set spatial distance. An inch is an inch. Again, it corresponds to a spatial distance. That spatial distance just happens to be 1/12th of a foot, however, just because you *can* convert doesn't mean you have to.

 

As I said, a kilometer isn't a unit of distance, it's just 1000 meters. To that end, (physical distance aside) the difference between saying 10,000 feet and 10 kilometers is effectively nil. Why? Because a foot is a foot is a foot. The number of yards in a mile doesn't matter, just your spatial understanding of how far a yard is versus a mile. No user of the Imperial system has to actually perform conversions, because when we say 'four feet', we understand how far four feet is - we don't think 'four feet... that's 1.3333 yards!'.

 

PS: If you want to know more about how the metric system is just as stupid as the Imperial system, consider the gold plate that's attached to the Voyager probes, upon which scientists have inscribed instructions for translating time and distance to an alien race. Absolutely nowhere on that record is anything relating to 'meters'. The use the transition period of hydrogen, and the speed of light.

 

Not your ambiguous, meaningless 'meters' :)

Edited April 30, 2011 by Frostiken

[Frederf]

Are we really arguing which is better, imperial or metric? What's next, Christianity and Judaism? Coca-Cola or Pepsi?

 

Black Shark deserves metric, Warthog deserves imperial. What do you do when both modules are compatible and share missions?

[Frostiken]

Are we really arguing which is better, imperial or metric? What's next, Christianity and Judaism? Coca-Cola or Pepsi?

 

Black Shark deserves metric, Warthog deserves imperial. What do you do when both modules are compatible and share missions?

 

You click the option box that simply shoves all the numbers through a simple equation so the ME can let you pick your preference.

 

PS: My point is that neither system is better :D

[Frederf]

I mean so you can type "3000m" in the Ka-50 waypoints and "10000 ft" in the A-10 waypoints.

[JS]

Are we really arguing which is better, imperial or metric? What's next, Christianity and Judaism?

 

That would just be silly, everyone knows that Scientology is the best religion for both real and simulated pilots. Just ask Mr Top Gun, Tom Cruise, and John Travolta, who is a pilot and flies his own jets. :laugh: