[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #9958] [octave forge](mapping) gcxgc

From: Philip Nienhuis
Subject: [Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #9958] [octave forge](mapping) gcxgc
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 16:24:23 -0400 (EDT)
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0

Update of patch #9958 (project octave):

                  Status:             In Progress => Done                   
             Open/Closed:                    Open => Closed                 


Follow-up Comment #27:

Just to be clear, your latest version of comment #15 was also more accurate
then Matlab. Especially when computing intersection points at the equator.
I'm still intrigued why it yields false positives for coinciding great
circles. Maybe some unfortunate sin/cos or +- swap somewhere in the formulas?

Anyway after some more adaptations I've pushed gcxgc3.m fro comment #22,
renamed to gcxgc.m, here:
I still perceive it as a first go, hopefully the version from comment #1 can
be fixed one day; but for now I won't spend more time on it.
Things I adapted:
* Option for a single output (cf. Matlab)
* Dropped the requirement of Longitudes and Azimuths to be in the range
[-180,180] 0r [pi,pi], as Matlab happily accepts those and they are implicitly
wrapped into that interval in our version.

Matlab still accepts azimuths or 90 degrees and yields finite answers; a bug
if you ask me. But maybe that has been fixed in later releases; I have only
r2014a and didn't have time to install the prerelease 2020b yet.


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via Savannah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]