Quote:
Originally Posted by LGN1
Maybe a parameter has no influence if other parameters have certain values... And since so many paramters enter a sensor's performance equation, I'm sure there are quite a few paramter sets to obtain a certain result.
|
Perhaps, but you seem to be arguing from the unknown to the known. On the one hand, we have actual empirical evidence (as presented by Stiebler), while on the other we have what appears to be unsupported suppositions.
If we start from the unknown, we are hardly in a position to disqualify that which is known.
Stiebler presented a set of findings and then posited a question based on those findings. In my view, the time and effort involved in arriving at the data merited an honest answer rather than an attempt to disqualify the premise.
Quote:
|
I'm convinced that modding sensors is one of the hardest things you can do because of all the parameters involved and the dependencies. Therefore, I regard it as absolutely necessary to test thoroughly. And I'm quite convinced that GWX has been tested well.
|
You may well be right. Furthermore I concede you may well be in a better position than I to judge the testing quality of GWX. While this may all be true, it still amounts to indirect knowledge.
The only knowledge we have that is direct is a surface contact variable of zero and the generally held assertion that hardly anyone makes it past '44.
While I readily admit this may only be a part of the picture, for the time being it's the only part we have to go on. Hence I can either speak from that which we do know or I can let the question go unanswered for lack of a complete picture.
In this case I chose to do the former, mainly out of deference for the effort Stiebler put in to investigate.