Should target face diameter be in different units? #17
Replies: 5 comments
-
This would also allow for improvements to the |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
People normally quote target sizes in cm instead of m, so I think that'd be more intuitive. It also means you can specify sizes exactly as an int and avoid floating-point round off, but I really doubt that matters in practice. One option could be to have an optional keyword argument of Also, which rounds use targets sized in inches? I'd guess that 122cm faces used to be sized in inches since it's approximately 4 feet, but I wasn't aware of anybody still doing it that way. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Yeah - indeed I've been caught out a number of times when using this because I intuitively use the cm measurement, and I'm the one who wrote it!! I did consider pint, but at the time of writing I had too many other bits to sort to think more about it. EFAA still uses inches, but even within AGB the Worcester is still in inches. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I think best approach is to provide tooling for users to specify in cm, inches, or m, with the default being cm, but they store everything under the hood in m so as to preserve SI units and make the code less prone to errors. I'll open an issue requesting this. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
#27 Opened to reflect this. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
At present target face diameter is set in metres.
This is to keep things in SI units and try to negate bugs.
However, there is an argument that it would be more intuitive for users to set in cm.
And to perhaps add the option of setting in inches as well.
Thoughts?
Based on discussion this could become an issue with a feature request.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions