On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:46 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Preface > ====================================================== > I would like to see the sim become more friendly to casual users > especially on the eye candy side of things. > This does not need to detract from the scientific/academic nature of > FlightGear - you guys can carry on with the great work. > My reason for this is that a lot of people who play with sims can > also develop addons but there needs to be an incentive to get them > involved and screenshots say more than a thousand words can.
As a counterpoint, I would like to request that this either not take priority, or that it be an option in the configure stage. I want fast framerates as the priority. For me, this is a _flight_ sim and I don't see the point of eyecandy. ( Personally, I was disappointed with FS2002 and much preferred the playability of FS98. FS2002 devoted too much to eyecandy and was so obtuse in actually getting to the point where you were in the air and flying that I stopped using it. It took about five minutes of configuring various options before you could take off.) > We need at least one properly/accurately modeled aircraft that we can show > off. > I'm talking nice visually (high poly count) and with an accurate flight model. > Most people using recent commercial flightsims are running > 1.5 GHz PCs with > at least 64MB GeForce 4's so poly counts can be fairly high. > I disagree with this assessment. I think lower spec machines should be able to run a _flight_ sim and shouldn't be excluded just for the sake of eyecandy. I agree with the OP re terrain mapping. > BTW : I took the Cessna 172 for a flip and was dissapointed. The visual model > is really rough - looks like it taxied into a brick wall to get into those > funny shapes. I don't agree with this assessment. I think it is modelled quite well. > At full throttle and a 1500 fpm decent it wouldn't go over 140 knots. In real > life it would hit VNE very quickly. > I just tried this and it does go to VNE. In my experience (a few hundred hours PPL, mainly C172 and C152), the C172 is modelled very accurately. Did the OP chase the VSI? It has a several-second lag, esp when changing attitude quickly (again, this is modelled accurately), which could account for him not hitting VNE. I know this may be anathema to some people, but I rarely use the external view and don't really care what the plane looks like from the outside. My priorities are: 1) accurate flight model; 2) high framerate; 3) accurate panel (in the sense the instruments do what they should, and that they are all represented, not in the sense that the panel looks like the real plane's panel). For example, there is a fault in the heading bug in some panels. If the DI is not slaved to the compass, the main HSI heading bug does not rotate with the change in direction and consequently, the heading bug never reaches the top of the card. It constantly rotates against the change in direction. Try the seahawk for an example. I'm not trying to rain on the OP's parade; I think he has some good ideas. It's just that I would prefer to see development take priority in the fields I am interested in, naturally enough. Nick, offering another viewpoint. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
