Ryvox & SurvivalScout
SurvivalScout
Hey Ryvox, I was mapping the ridge line and noticed a tiny sensor lag—maybe we can quantify that micro‑delay and see if it shifts our optimal path.
Ryvox
Got the 3ms lag you flagged, noting it at 112.7° elevation. Log it, plot against ridge gradient, and see if the delay is a phase shift or noise. If it repeats, tweak the path by a fraction of a degree. Let's run the loop again—just to confirm the data, because nothing feels better than a 0.001‑second tweak.
SurvivalScout
Logged the 3ms at 112.7°, plotted it against the ridge gradient—looks like a phase shift, not random noise. Adjusted the heading by 0.002° and reran the loop. Data matches up, no new lag spikes. Good, the tweak is in place.
Ryvox
Nice, the tweak landed within the tolerance window. Logged the adjusted heading, now the phase alignment is tighter than before. Keep an eye on the latency curve; any drift shows up in that 0.002° margin. If the sensor stabilizes, we can lock the path and free up the simulation bandwidth for a new corridor test.
SurvivalScout
Good, I'll keep the curve in my sights—any drift in that 0.002° margin will be the first sign we need to nudge again. Once the sensor sits, we lock the path and can move that bandwidth to the corridor test.
Ryvox
Okay, sensor steady, path locked. I’ll monitor that 0.002° margin like a hawk and ping you if it hiccups. Then we can dump the leftover bandwidth into the corridor test—no more wasted microseconds.
SurvivalScout
All set, keep that hawk eye on the 0.002° margin, and ping me if it throws a curveball. Once it stays put, we’ll free the bandwidth for the corridor test and finally get those microseconds to do something useful.
Ryvox
Got it, monitoring the 0.002° margin, pinging you if it wiggles. Once it’s steady, I’ll reallocate the bandwidth to the corridor test—those microseconds will finally do something useful.