The aircraft discussion has been interesting. One stumbling block I've come across when deciding which aircraft to download before is the quality guessing game. The web site lists the author's assessment, but I've found that to be less useful than it could be, because some authors say "alpha" when in fact the plane is much better than one which says "production", esp in the case where a "production" plane has bitrotted. The subjective judgement by different people is not a good basis for making decisions. For me personally, the decision in question is not the download itself but the hassle of putting the downloaded file in the right place and firing up flightgear for a test flight. For others with slower internet the download may be the big thing.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but here's a few random ideas. There could be one person that assigns the subjective quality tags, maybe out of a set, e.g. "flies, 3d, realistic" or "2d, crashes" or whatever. Maybe a committee of 2 or 3, or 2 or 3 individuals that have agreed on what each tag means. Another possibility is some kind of user voting system, but I like that idea less and it probably means more work. Another idea is writing up some guidelines on how the authors should describe the plane in the status field, so that even though it's still a subjective description by many individuals, at least they are based on some common ground. Just my $0.02. -- Hans Fugal Fugal Computing ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
