smiths / caseStudies

Case studies of (manual) documentation for scientific computing software
3 stars 2 forks source link

Game Physics: Inconsistencies #52

Open Mornix opened 6 years ago

Mornix commented 6 years ago

(Issue #29)

The following is a list of inconsistencies in the Game Physics SRS:

smiths commented 6 years ago

I've copied the markdown text from above. I'll now edit in my comments.

The following is a list of inconsistencies in the [Game Physics SRS] (https://github.com/smiths/caseStudies/blob/master/CaseStudies/gamephys/documentation/SRS/GamePhysicsSRS.pdf):

Good catch. As you comment implies, consistency is the key. I don't actually have a rule for this type of capitalization; I just want it to be consistent. Can you please update the capitalization, going in whatever direction is the least amount of work. Does the Drasil code have the same problem? It would be nice if Drasil auto-generated capitalization, so that the text was always consistent. Even better if we could control the style of capitalization with a user configurable input. 😄

Another good catch. I prefer the notation that uses the function of time approach, instead of the subscript approach. Would it be feasible to update the manual case study and the Drasil generated code to use this approach?

Good catch. Please add a reference to the force acting on the body to R6.

Good! Please make everything plural.

We can leave this one as it is, since g in the tables is the acceleration toward the centre of the earth due to gravity, which is a scalar value.