Stuart > > > Thanks for addressing the points that were hammered out over on the IRC > > channel. I think the modified system could work. Just a few points > remain: > > > > There is no penalty for including systems, such as an AP, where none > existed > > on the original. > > There's not an explicit penalty. but I think Hal has addressed this in > the notes > for the System criteria: > > "Ignore systems not present on the aircraft IRL. If the real aircraft > doesn't have > a system (e.g. autopilot), the FG model shouldn't have either and if > all systems > in the real aircraft are modeled then it scores a 5 even if it is a > very simple aircraft. " > > I'm not sure how much of a problem this is. If someone chooses not to > disable the > generic autopilot for a vintage aircraft, it will have no effect on > pilots who choose > to fly realistically (they simply won't use it). If the system is > exposed in the cockpit, > then it is covered by the rating for accuracy of cockpit - a KAP140 in > the Sopwith > Camel would obviously not be worth a 4 or 5 cockpit rating.
That is correct - but it doesn't follow from the criteria quoted above. > I don't think it's unreasonable for vintage aircraft to have access to > a radio, for > example. A modern pilot flying a vintage aircraft would carry a hand-held. Yes - it depends on whether we are modeling the original, or a currently flying example. I've never quite made up my mind on that one. > > > The use of shaders etc. may or may not enhance the realism of the model > and > > in some cases could be used inappropriately. This is a subjective > > assessment, and perhaps could be removed from the points system. > > > > Livery support is not necessarily an enhancement - it is not appropriate > for > > all models. > > We're talking here about the difference between a 4 or 5 External > Model rating, where > we're trying to differentiate between a good external model and one that > is as > realistic as possible. > > I think we should differentiate between them if possible, but I'm > struggling to think > up some objective criteria. Photo-realistic? model resolution of 5cm? > > Perhaps we end up providing subjective criteria, or some additional > guidance > in this case? I think guidance - livery shouldn't be a criterion for realism, but it might form part of it. Realism is the goal. > > > I'm not clear if you are awarding points for underwing stores and the > like. > > Hadn't thought about that at all. I've added it to the criteria for a > "4" rating. > > > We have additional features such as co-pilot/RIO over MP, Wingmen, > Formation > > Control, Tutorials, Aircraft Specific Help, Contrails, Vapour Trails, > and > > there are probably some I missed. > > Contrails & Vapour trails should probably be covered by the external > model, I think. > I could add them (along with tyre smoke) as criteria for a Model 5 rating? Yes - tyre smoke is a generic facility - there is no reason for it not being added to a model. > I don't have a good answer for the other items. Some are nice-to-haves > that enrich > the simulation experience but don't impact simulation of flight > itself, but others > (such as a co-pilot) are more important for multi-crew aircraft. Call them all "advanced features". That could be a/the criterion for "advanced production" > > And finally - the points system could award a high status to a poor > model - > > there are no points awarded for the accuracy or the fidelity of the 3d > > model. E.G there is at least one model with afterburners modelled where > none > > existed. > > I've updated the external model to include the world "Accurate" for > ratings 3-5. Good > Of course, we're trusting that aircraft developers are going to apply the > rating > criteria accurately to the best of their ability. Yes - I think perhaps a bit of spot-checking to keep us all honest? > > Oh and, finally finally - the model with the highest score might be so > good > > that the framerate means that it can only be used on high-end systems or > > away from detailed airports. This limitation should be noted somewhere. > > I don't have a good answer to that. Does that become criteria for a "5" in > External Model? I think this ends up back as something subjective. I think we need some form of bench-mark - perhaps the default model at KSFO with certain (all?) features enabled. The aircraft to be rated scores a % framerate above or below this norm? Thinking aloud here a bit. Perhaps that's a bit too fancy. > > Let's hope that this tool can help to bring some order out of the > current > > chaos. > > We can but try. Certainly this seems to have a bit more momentum behind it > than previous attempts, based on the feedback here and on IRC. > > If enough people rate their aircraft and we can use it to provide a better > download page for the upcoming release, it will succeed. > Let's hope - some aircraft developers have an awful lot of aircraft to rate. Vivian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security. With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery, you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection. Download your free trial now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1 _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
