Mick West's latest activity

Fixed! Although, with 3D buildings, this location doesn't need the Google Earth polygons. https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=1/brussels_HLN_20251104T203645Z/20260414_183236.js

I very much doubt that the process will ever be independently fully replicated. I've been doing a bit of work with @HoaxEye on this, and there are numerous pitfalls and sensitivities. Unless you have the original source code, with pinned...

The problem here is that each time I dig into your theories (like the triangulation issue), it takes a lot of time, and the end result is that there's some assumption you made that makes the entire thing meaningless (IIRC with triangulation it...

I'm closing this for now as I've made a lot of performance improvement. Open a new bug if there's something specific that is slow.

Fixed and improved! 2.45.5 https://github.com/MickWest/Sitrec2/commit/d00b2c6ff8d6cf3a3c0a3cdc3089e64b0e3babec

The current Gimbal sim is in something of an experimental state, before I lost interest. The original one (that I reference in my video) is here: https://www.metabunk.org/gimbal1/ No problem there, but it leaves the initial observed...

I'll fix it. Please put new bugs in new threads (leave this though)

Why would it? There's nothing in there that predict bumps. Nothing prevents bumps from other sources. The implemented model predicts what the glare angle should be. The extents are not in the implemented model, and they don't require bumps...

He claimed it failed to predict a bump. I see nothing in the model to support that. It's a meaningless assertion.

There is no predictive simulator of bumps. Why would it identify any bumps. Bumps are things that we observe happening. But the code makes no predictions. It does not attempt to stay in a deviation range. That's just what is observed. There's...

No, it does not. There is nothing in the code that predicts bumps or steps. We simply observe those things happening. All it predicts is the curve (which is hard math, constrained by the physical reality of the gimbals, which is maybe why the...

That it's a glare. Your assertions don't invalidate any of it. Like: There is no "predictive roll simulator" that identifies bumps. No bumps are predicted by anything; they are simply observed slightly before rotations. You utterly...

Did you ever demonstrate this?

That the "object" is glare. You've seen my video. There's a huge weight of evidence. A LIZ noisy-data puzzle does not override all of that.

Like a big balloon? Surely that's a subset of a broader "nearby object" theory? In all seriousness, perhaps we need a hierarchical taxonomy of theories? And then a ranked list? And are you saying that a theory should get a high ranking if it...