WX Realtime links

[OKD]

Hi Hardy...

Just wondering if your upcoming PS X will have the above-mentioned capability for added realism..?

[Hardy Heinlin]

Hi OK,

yes it does.

When PSX is receiving und using real-time METARs, manual editing is disabled:




I, for one, mostly set my (bad) weather manually as I don't want to search the whole planet for places with bad weather :-)




Ahoi,

|-|ardy

[frumpy]

yummy, tasty!  

[Will]

Very good!  Minor English suggestion: the "are being" in your bottom check box is redundant and sounds a bit awkward.  I'd suggest:

"Set zones automatically using aircraft position and downloaded METARS."

[Hardy Heinlin]

Thanks for the suggestion. Is any other native English speaker aboard disagreeing with that suggestion?


|-|

[OKD]

Hardy...What a beauty....you are THE MAN.....

Anyhow...Will's suggestion sounds more precise in giving out instruction, while yours is more in "giving info".  So to me, depends on your intention in writing that sentence...?

Both sentences work fine by me, so take your pick...

[Will]

OKD, I agree with you, but the "being" still sounds unnecessary.  Not to make this a more complicated discussion than it has to be, but if Hardy wants to indicate a command, I'd recommend this:

[ ] Set zones automatically using aircraft position and downloaded METARs

But if he wants to indicate a state, I'd recommend this:

[ ] Zones auto-set by aircraft position and downloaded METARs

These are subtleties, granted, but the "are being" is a bit too immediate, as if it's a temporary process that will expire soon, and we're expressing the current transient state.  As opposed to a state that's permanent (for as long as you check the box).

Hardy, I say this as a person who is fluent in German and lived in Germany for three and a half years: Germans overuse the "being" form of English verbs all the time.  The most common mistake is to use the -ing form to represent a permanent state, as in the following all-time classic mistake:

Q: What does your mother do for a living? (implies permanence)
A: She is working as a pilot for Lufthansa. (implies temporary state)

The -ing form indicates a transient state of affairs, whereas the question was calling for a more permanent answer.  Obviously, the correct dialogue would be:

Q: What does your mother do for a living? (implies permanence)
A: She works as a pilot for Lufthansa. (implies permanence)

Or else:

Q: Where is your mother now? (implies temporary state)
A: She is walking home from the train station. (implies temporary state)

It's tricky for German speakers, because this distinction is unavailable by looking at the verb form alone.  English seems so easy in most respects, but this is confusing, I agree!

In the case of Hardy's check box, it sounds like the once the box is checked, the situation is static and won't expire automatically.  It won't expire until the user un-checks the box.  Therefore the -ing form sounds a little misplaced, like the Lufthansa example.

The check box could be both giving info and giving instruction, as OKD correctly points out.  To my ears, it sounds like giving instruction, i.e. giving a command, hence my original suggestion, but this a separate issue than whether the -ing form of the verb is correct.

Thanks for putting up with my long-winded explanation!

[OKD]

Will...

Long-wind, but informative....that's a good example you put forth in relations to the "...ing" being used by most, if not only by the Germans... You've quite rightly so pointed out as well....

Well Hardy...
just take your pick...and is it ok to show us ONE more of your screenshot, preferably with horrible weather!!!???...I know, I am asking for too much, but still.........

[Joe Clark]

Hardy,

I think Will's suggestion is the better fit based on what you're trying to state and grammatical rules.

[Hardy Heinlin]

I'm always interested to know when my English is incorrect. Don't hesitate to tell me, no matter how long-winded :-)

This is also a general thing in terms of GUI design: I want to have both, graphic design and text design, as precise as possible. Elegant, unambigous and easy to read also for non-native English users.

I had two versions of that sentence:
a) ... are auto-set ...
b) ... are being auto-set ...

I used the passive form because that job is done by the computer (the automation does), not by the user. For instance, on the screenshot below you see actions done by the user, e.g. "Allow printout ...", there I usually don't use the passive form because the verb refers to the user (the user allows).

I didn't know of a passive continuous form for that "auto-set" thing other than "are being". "Are" alone would indicate a completed job. A mate from Australia agreed with my choice :-)

So, for GUI consistency, wouldn't it be paradox if I, the user, would "automatically set" something? The computer sets it automatically. I just allow it by clicking the checkbox.

Another problem here:
"Zones auto-set by aircraft position and downloaded METARs"

It's a shortcut version with an invisible "are" or "are being". The grammar problem remains, the critical word still exists in the background, it's just not visible :-)

Anyway, I do like this suggestion:
"Set zones automatically using aircraft position and downloaded METARs"

Below is a similar problem: "Show title, frame ..." -- The verb "show" actually refers to the computer. But the sentence is long and the verb "show" is short, there's the point again where both graphic space and text must fit.


[size=8](Click to enlarge)[/size]

It should actually read:
[x] Simulator starts with real world UTC ...

Passive user. The computer picks up the UTC during start.

Edit: Also the "allow" word could be removed in all cases actually. It just bloats the text.
Edit 2: On the other hand: no. "Allow" is OK. There is a second condition to make the job happen. The checkbox alone won't make it happen (windows won't immediately stretch, printouts won't immediately separate etc.). Therefore: allow.


Cheers,

|-|ardy

[Will]

My sense is to keep the verbs in, because checking the box is giving the computer a command. When I check a box, I'm asking the computer to carry out an action for me, to make some kind of state change in the simulator (from the unchecked state to the checked state).  Check boxes are action items; I check the box, the computer makes a change.... so I like the verbs.

[ ] Allow ...
[ ] Set ...
[ ] Display ...
[ ] Remove ...
[ ] Hide ...
[ ] Activate ...

But that's just me.

[Hardy Heinlin]

Agreed :-) This perspective works also. So I allow the computer to allow me to save situations through the EVENT RCD button. The computer allows me to do this.

So I no longer need to distinguish if the commanding verb refers to the user or to the computer; every commanding verb refers to the computer. And that makes the text design consistent, including "Set zones automatically ...". (The word "automatically" may be redundant, but it still helps for a better understanding and is therefore not quite redundant.)


Cheers,

|-|ardy

[torrence]

I like the conclusion to go with active, command verbs.  This is more in line with general modern English style.  The passive, while technically correct and much loved of some literary authors in the past, has been out of favor in technical writing for some time.  When I was a student, we were taught to suppress the ego and use only passive constructions - resulting in such laborious lines as "the spectrometer was calibrated in the laboratory by use of standard lamps", instead of the current preferred, direct style, "we calibrated the spectrometer using standard lamps."

But all languages have their beauty, even ones that can come up with a twenty letter word for the captain of a certain class of river boat on the Rhine, and end a paragraph-long sentence with "gewesen worden sein"  

Cheers,
Torrence

[Will]

Torrence, sadly the passive voice is alive and well in academic writing.  The new kids (i.e. graduate students) train themselves to write that way because they think is sounds more academic.  When in fact, it sounds klunky and stilted.  At least we're not still writing all academic papers in Latin.

[Hardy Heinlin]

I, too, think it sounds sort of klunky (in English and in German and perhaps in many other languages). However, in a longer essay I like the passive form better than the ego form, so that not every sentence needs to be ... sorry ... so that I don't have to start every sentence with "I".


I-I

At least we're not still writing all academic papers in Latin.

Not Latin. Nowadays it's English. Same effect, you just don't notice because it's your native language :-)

[torrence]

Actually I like mixing styles also, Hardy; and I still think there's a place for well used ";"s too.   If you can find it, Strunk and White's "Elements of Style" is a great read.  This used to be the style "Bible" at the New Yorker magazine in its heyday.

Latin - Hah! One of the journals I publish in went through a phase in the 70's of requiring all foreign terms, including place names, to be translated to English.  Result - we couldn't understand our own papers about the Moon since we'd all learned the classic Latin names for lunar features!  Fortunately a passing fad.  The International Astronomical Union is still in charge of deciding what goes on planetary maps.  Just don't ask to have a crater named after you - the requirement is you have to be dead.

Cheers,
Torrence

[Will]

Hardy,

1. Will the "T/O min 200m" be replaced by "T/O min RVR 06" for those of us who use English units?
2. There should be a hyphen between non and precision, viz.: "Non-precision"
3. Interesting choice of "Port" and "Starboard."  Here in the USA, not even pilots are completely conversant with that, and it sounds archaic.  It looks like you have room to say "Left of course" and "Right of course," but then you may be going for an archaic, retro, nautical feel, and may choose to leave the terminology as it is.
4. When you're flying into clouds, can you see them approaching?

Great work so far!

[Hardy Heinlin]

"T/O min RVR 06" and "Right of course" are too long.

But I'll change it to "T/O min RVR" and leave, as usual, the details to the tooltip text (mouse rollover).

I'll add the hyphen.

It isn't really essential to know which side is starboard. Either you'll fly directly into the microburst center -- or you streak it from one of the two sides and you counteract the lateral hit on the tail according to the information on your EFIS.

Detailed clouds are only on the radar, while the outside world shows overcast even when there are just a few clouds.


Thanks for the feedback!

|-|ardy

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

There is some reason behind using the passive (in academic and technical writing): it downplays who did the action when this is considered unimportant.

For the satellite data cable, a conduct was mounted along the length of the fuselage.

Typically this kind of thing is subcontracted to specialised companies which do the job, take the money, and disappear.

Of course, the passive also increases sentence surface complexity and therefore scores low on readability. Fortunately, there are still areas where precise sentences are valued over one-liners.

Now, can somebody enlighten me why a verb expressing a transient state is called continuous?   :mrgreen:


Jeroen

[Richard McDonald Woods]

'Now, can somebody enlighten me why a verb expressing a transient state is called continuous?'

The verb 'to go' has 2 present tenses. 'I go' is a statement that I currently go, more than once, and is therefore an expression that I may not be going at this moment, but I am in the process of going sometimes. so, 'I go jogging'.

'I am going', though, means that, at this moment, I am going but has no implication that I may go more than once. So it is transient, in that it may cease at some point, but also continuous because I am still going. So, 'I am going jogging'.

HTH,
Cheers, R