On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Thorsten R. wrote: > Stuart wrote: > >> In the great tradition of re-inventing the wheek, I'd propose 4 criteria: >> - FDM >> - Systems >> - Cockpit >> - External Model. > > It sounds very neat and if a large fraction of aircraft ends up rated that > way, then I'll be the the first to admit that it works better than my > scheme because it contains more information on other aspects. > > The main problems I see is: > > * it relies on a large number of people (= almost every developer should > do it), otherwise if you create a list and people use it to pick aircraft, > they will pick based on who bothered to self-rate, not based on what is > good
I think if we intended to include these ratings on the download page, developers would be very keen on rating their aircraft. After all, we create them to share with the community, and this will help encourage people to try different aircraft. > * different people may have different ideas what for example an > 'accurately modelled cockpit' is - the same way as right now 'alpha' and > 'beta' ratings on the download page mean very different things dependent > on developer > > So - let's simply see what happens! > > For comparison, here is a draft for how I would rate systems. I think an > important idea is that a model should get full points whenever it is > complete, i.e. implements all there is - so gliders are not punished for > the lack of an engine startup procedure. In retrospect, I think my points system for systems isn't very well thought out so should be replaced with a sensible object ranking that doesn't discriminate against simpler aircraft. However, I'd like to differentiate between the straight instrumentation, which I think should be included in the cockpit rating, and the systems themselves. So, taking the ranking you proposed and modifying them slightly: 0 - No controllable systems: engine is always on, generic radio, 1 - Generic engine start/stop (}}s), correct size/number of fuel tanks, generic (untuned) autopilot, working flaps/gear 2 - Working electrical system, fuel feed cockpit controls, stable autopilot 3 - Accurate startup procedure, tuned autopilot with cockpit controls matching real aircraft systems, generic failure modelling (Vne, +ve/-ve G, gear limits) 4 - Primary aircraft-specific systems modelled (aero-tow, radar, GPWS). User able to follow normal PoH checklists (e.g. startup, shutdown) in entirety 5 - Some aircraft-specific failure modes implemented (e.g. flame-out, inverted engine limitations). Some emergency procedures implemented (RAT, emergency gear release), able to follow some emergency PoH checklists in entirety. I think this gives a fairly obvious progression in quality that would match how aircraft developers are likely to develop, and allows a glider to be rated accurately. -Stuart ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App & Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base & get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
