L:Var with a DEC action problem

[Gypsy Baron]

I am finding that using a DEC action with a parameter of "0" does not work correctly.

Any other parameter does work as advertised, setting the lower limit...."1" or "-1" for my test purposes.

But setting "0" as the parameter and using my switch with a DEC action assigned, the L:Var decrements

into the negative range, not being limited to "0".

  Paul

[Pete Dowson]

48 minutes ago, Gypsy Baron said:

I am finding that using a DEC action with a parameter of "0" does not work correctly.

Any other parameter does work as advertised, setting the lower limit...."1" or "-1" for my test purposes.

But setting "0" as the parameter and using my switch with a DEC action assigned, the L:Var decrements

into the negative range, not being limited to "0".

Can you tell me which version of FSUIPC this is with, and show me the assignment you made, please (the entry in the INI will do fine)?

Pete

 

[Gypsy Baron]

FSUIPC 4.957b which I just updated to earlier after seeing the issue on the version I had been running, which was perhaps 4951.

Here are the sections I tested. I have been using this technique for years and just noticed the action discrepancy as I began setting up and testing a new aircraft.(Designated by XXXX here)

268=B66C0=9 CP(-C,6)A,2,CM25:90,0     -{Macro A2A_XXXX: L:FuelDumpLeftLeverState dec}-
269=B66C0=9 CP(-C,6)A,3,CM25:91,0     -{Macro A2A_XXXX: L:FuelDumpRightLeverState dec}-
270=B66C0=9 CP(+C,6)A,2,CM25:100,2     -{Macro A2A_XXXX: L:FuelDumpLeftLeverState inc}-
271=B66C0=9 CP(+C,6)A,3,CM25:101,2     -{Macro A2A_XXXX: L:FuelDumpRightLeverState inc}-

385=B66C0=1 CR(+C,6)D,14,CM25:102,99     -{Macro A2A_XXXX: L:Eng1_CarbAirLever inc}-
386=B66C0=1 CR(+C,6)D,16,CM25:103,99     -{Macro A2A_XXXX: L:Eng2_CarbAirLever inc}-
387=B66C0=1 CR(+C,6)D,18,CM25:104,99     -{Macro A2A_XXXX: L:Eng3_CarbAirLever inc}-
388=B66C0=1 CR(+C,6)A,0,CM25:105,99     -{Macro A2A_XXXX: L:Eng4_CarbAirLever inc}-
389=B66C0=1 CR(+C,6)D,15,CM25:106,0     -{Macro A2A_XXXX: L:Eng1_CarbAirLever dec}-
390=B66C0=1 CR(+C,6)D,17,CM25:107,0     -{Macro A2A_XXXX: L:Eng2_CarbAirLever dec}-
391=B66C0=1 CR(+C,6)D,19,CM25:108,0     -{Macro A2A_XXXX: L:Eng3_CarbAirLever dec}-
392=B66C0=1 CR(+C,6)A,1,CM25:109,0     -{Macro A2A_XXXX: L:Eng4_CarbAirLever dec}-

I also used an spare non-compounded switch pair to test one of those L:Var operations:

Here is where I saw that a -1 worked OK for the lower limit but not '0' and I reduced the upper limit from 100 to 10 just to doule check that action and it was OK.

-{========================================================================}-
611=PE,32,CM25:102,10     -{Macro A2A_XXXX: L:Eng1_CarbAirLever inc}-
612=PE,36,CM25:106,-1     -{Macro A2A_XXXX: L:Eng1_CarbAirLever dec}-

Paul

 

 

[Pete Dowson]

Okay, thanks. I'll do some checking here. Maybe it's always been this way.

Pete

 

[Pete Dowson]

I've found the reason.

A parameter of 0 is indistinguishable from an omitted parameter, so no minimum is applied.

The main use for assuming 0 is omission is so that input values, eg, from axis inputs, can be applied. I can see that this really wouldn't apply to limits. I can make this not apply to DEC and INC operations, though I'd be a little worried that this might adversely affect other applications of the facility where it might have been assumed that no limit means no limit applied.

However, the documentation does state that the parameter sets the limit, so I've made the change in an interim version for you. I'll be uploading it soon and will post the link here.

Pete

 

 

 

 

[Pete Dowson]

Here's a link to the interim update:

FSUIPC4957d.zip

After tonight I will be away till October 17th, so there won't be a released update for a while.

Pete

 

[Gypsy Baron]

Thanks Pete. I will check this out within the next hour.

I have used the DEC action on other aircraft for years and never saw an issue. In any case,

if the limit of '0' works in this update then I'm happy.

  Paul

[Gypsy Baron]

I just checked the interim version you supplied above and the DEC with a parameter of 0 works as advertised now.

Thanks for the quick response Pete. Enjoy your next trip!

Paul