Wouldn't it make more sense for the real world to use double instead?
What is the reason why the load dimensions values are int32
What is the reason why the load dimensions values are int32
Hi,
Wouldn't it make more sense for the real world to use double instead?
Wouldn't it make more sense for the real world to use double instead?
-
TomDeDecker
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2023 2:32 pm
Re: What is the reason why the load dimensions values are int32
Hi,
While admittedly that would make more sense, the current implementation does indeed require you to specify whole numbers.
The underlying reasons are purely technical (performance, dealing with rounding errors...) - and based on what I could gather from the team, surprisingly difficult/annoying to change.
Depending on what units the base data are in, our current recommendation is to scale up the values if needed, to arrive at integers for the various loads. Naturally, this means the same needs to happen with the corresponding vehicle capacities, in order for the plan to work.
I've challenged this matter with the team, and we will discuss this further internally.
But for now, we will need to keep things wholesome.
Kind regards,
Tom
While admittedly that would make more sense, the current implementation does indeed require you to specify whole numbers.
The underlying reasons are purely technical (performance, dealing with rounding errors...) - and based on what I could gather from the team, surprisingly difficult/annoying to change.
Depending on what units the base data are in, our current recommendation is to scale up the values if needed, to arrive at integers for the various loads. Naturally, this means the same needs to happen with the corresponding vehicle capacities, in order for the plan to work.
I've challenged this matter with the team, and we will discuss this further internally.
But for now, we will need to keep things wholesome.
Kind regards,
Tom