|
developerFieldValues.push({ developer_data_index: 0, field_num: 0, value: trackpoint.driveLength * 100 }) |
I am wondering if the drive length scaling is correct, in the sample fit you shared on rowsandall:
it seems that we are meters but it show 136 which is strange in the sense that 136 meters. Should not it be 1.36 instead?
I would expect fitfileviewer to show 1.2m instead similarly to the normalized position where we have 58 (i.e. %)
I mean its possible that the library does not apply appropriate scaling to the fields when saving, or fitfileviewer does not apply it, but then I would expect the forces to the in the thousands and the normalizeds position in the 5800 as well. as that would be the consistent approach.
openrowingmonitor/app/recorders/fitRecorder.js
Line 1462 in d1758ab
I am wondering if the drive length scaling is correct, in the sample fit you shared on rowsandall:
it seems that we are meters but it show 136 which is strange in the sense that 136 meters. Should not it be 1.36 instead?
I would expect fitfileviewer to show 1.2m instead similarly to the normalized position where we have 58 (i.e. %)
I mean its possible that the library does not apply appropriate scaling to the fields when saving, or fitfileviewer does not apply it, but then I would expect the forces to the in the thousands and the normalizeds position in the 5800 as well. as that would be the consistent approach.