Hi there, On Dec 8, 2007, at 5:01 AM, Syd&Sandy wrote: >> Quite a few of the aircraft currently use the following scale: >> >> - alpha >> - beta >> - early-production >> - production >> (snip) > I agree with most of the discussion , but the above scale means > nothing to me , it doesn't give ME any indication of what I'm > downloading .... it only means something from an authors point of > view , IMHO. > Im trying to think as a user :) > I do agree that we need something more informative .
What about the following perspectives? 1. Flight model stability (at least flyable without easily noticeable weird behaviors) 2. 3D model completeness (at least shape is acceptable, textured, and gears are animated) 3. Instruments completeness (it doesn't have to be 3D but should be working properly, most of instruments should be implemented) 4. Interior completeness (at least cockpit room, throttle, canopy are implemented) We still need to know how to rate aircraft "objectively" using these perspectives. Considering authenticity is a big problem to me. for 3D model, Instruments and interior, some people can rate aircraft, but for Flight model, I have no idea how to rate especially historical aircraft since there exists few data or aircraft itself. Best, Tat ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
