Thorsten
-Original Message-
From:.i.r...@jyu.fi [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi]
Sent: 02 December 2010 10:58
To: vivian.mea...@lineone.net; FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
My point is your rating was based
Nevertheless, I am not persuaded. Your rating is based on: Four legs
good, two legs bad!. While that may be generally true, it will throw up
many anomalies, and the problem is you neither know which these are,
nor how many, because you haven't and can't properly test your hypothesis.
First of
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
Henri wrote:
Please don't fall in the MSFS policy, when the eye candy is the main
approach.
I don't see 'accuracy' and 'visual detail' as mutually exclusive - you can
have both. I for once am interested in 'realism' in a simulator. An
important part is that the aircraft behaves like an
Thorsten
... snip ...
Vivian wrote:
If I might interject here, I would draw your attention to the KC135.
I looked it up and it got a 3 - seems to be reasonable, even given your
description (it shouldn't get zero because it actually flies - it
shouldn't get 1 because it has usuable
My point is your rating was based on an assumption that was totally
incorrect: that the developer had made a reasonable effort to put the
right
gauges and levers in the right place. Do you make a similar assumption
about
the FDM? That it is approximately right? Is there much value in such a
Le jeudi 02 décembre 2010 09:45:04, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi a écrit :
Henri wrote:
Please don't fall in the MSFS policy, when the eye candy is the
main
approach.
I don't see 'accuracy' and 'visual detail' as mutually exclusive -
you can
have both. I for once am interested in 'realism' in
Martin wrote:
I think the risk of doing harm by rating aircraft and their cockpits
after just a quick test is rather high compared to the potential
benefit - especially when you're too unfamiliar with some of the
respective real-life references. To put in into different words: By
assigning
-Original Message-
From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi]
Sent: 01 December 2010 08:58
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
... snip ...
Hmm - interesting. Are you sure you know what you
I'm afraid that your grading is no more than a beauty contest. It does
matter if the gauges are all in the right place or if the cockpit is
complete down to the last detail. Under your grading a cockpit could be
a complete figment of the imagination, but by looking pretty or having a
wow
thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I'm afraid that your grading is no more than a beauty contest. It does
matter if the gauges are all in the right place or if the cockpit is
complete down to the last detail. Under your grading a cockpit could be
a complete figment of the
So, if you claim that your rating is _not_ a beauty contest, then I'd
ask you: After taking the above mentioned thoughts into account, what's
left as a criteria for your rating ?
Martin, I see no need to repeat myself over and over. Please read the
explanations I have given so far, if you feel
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Martin Spott wrote:
So, if you claim that your rating is _not_ a beauty contest, then I'd
ask you: After taking the above mentioned thoughts into account, what's
left as a criteria for your rating ?
Martin, I see no need to repeat myself over and over. Please
One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of the
maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to
your criteria :)
Compared with, say, the A-10, the F-14b or the Tu-154b (which is not in
the GIT repository) - how would you rate the c172p cockpit?
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 15:06 +0200, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of the
maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to
your criteria :)
Compared with, say, the A-10, the F-14b or the Tu-154b (which is
Le mercredi 01 décembre 2010 14:06:11, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi a écrit :
One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of the
maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to
your criteria :)
Compared with, say, the A-10, the F-14b or the Tu-154b
thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of the
maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to
your criteria :)
Compared with, say, the A-10, the F-14b or the Tu-154b (which is not in
the GIT repository) - how
Thorsten wrote
-Original Message-
From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi]
Sent: 01 December 2010 11:43
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
So, if you claim that your rating is _not_ a beauty
Martin wrote
thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of
the
maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to
your criteria :)
Compared with, say, the A-10, the F-14b or the Tu-154b (which is not in
the
I like the work that Thorsten has done with the rating system, but you
guys are getting all tangled up in the details.
Why not build a pretty objective score card and then rate the aircraft on
that?
For example, you can have a list like this:
Exterior
---
Animated Control Surfaces
On 2010-12-01 15.18, Vivian Meazza wrote:
The point is that your rating system can't possibly pick this up. It is a
subjective opinion of the attractiveness of a cockpit. Or, as I said, a
beauty contest. This does have some value, and we certainly gain from
drawing attention to those models
I'm with Jari here. Let's not get all bent out of shape and make this way
more complicated than it was intended. Sure, someone could design the
mother of all ratings systems and build an online web based system to track
aircraft and ratings and sort and dice and do it all -- nothing wrong with
On 12/01/2010 08:14 AM, Gene Buckle wrote:
I like the work that Thorsten has done with the rating system, but you
guys are getting all tangled up in the details.
Why not build a pretty objective score card and then rate the aircraft on
that?
For example, you can have a list like this:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, dave perry wrote:
Actually, fixed gear can have animations. The C172 gear flexes with
gear compression. The wheels spin (when on the ground) and the nose
I *knew* this was going to come up. *laughs*
gear links are animated. There are a number of fixed gear aircraft in
I don't want to flog a dead horse, but you deserve answers to your questions.
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Thorsten wrote:
One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of the
maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to
your criteria :)
On 2 Dec 2010, at 00:18, Hal V. Engel wrote:
Total is 15 average is 3.75. For a developer this is very quick to do as it
took me all of perhaps 2 minutes. In addition this has very few things that
are at all subjective. I like it. It is perhaps a little simplistic in some
ways but it
Running through the same exercise for the p51d-jsbsim:
FDM: 5
Systems: 4 (still needs some electrical systems stuff)
Model: 3 (missing cooling door animation, liveries and Ambient
Occlusion
effect)
Cockpit: 3 (what is there is a 4 but it is missing a few things IE. not
complete)
Total
thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
What do the numbers mean?
=
Roughly, anything below 5 means that it isn't really finished and that I
think they should be alpha status. 7 and 8 are really nice cockpits, and 9
an 10 usually create a spontaneous 'wow!'.
I think the
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Martin Spott martin.sp...@mgras.netwrote:
thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
What do the numbers mean?
=
Roughly, anything below 5 means that it isn't really finished and that I
think they should be alpha status. 7 and 8 are really
Tim Moore wrote:
I for one really enjoyed the list and plan to check out some of the more
highly rated ones with which I'm not familiar. I can't believe that the
ratings will come as a surprise to any aircraft developer, and I hope that
their egos aren't so fragile as to be discouraged by a
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Tim Moore timoor...@gmail.com wrote:
I for one really enjoyed the list and plan to check out some of the more
highly rated ones with which I'm not familiar. I can't believe that the
ratings will come as a surprise to any aircraft developer, and I hope that
On 30 Nov 2010, at 17:04, Tim Moore wrote:
If I were you, I'd refrain from posting ratings as 'delicate' as this
one.
I for one really enjoyed the list and plan to check out some of the more
highly rated ones with which I'm not familiar. I can't believe that the
ratings will come as a
I do like Thorsten's list, especially since he attached images of each single
cockpit.
This makes it clear at what time of development he checked the aircraft.
Anyway, it is still a delicate subject and I don't think we'll ever find a
rating system that
works for all...
Curt wrote:
1. It
On 30 Nov 2010, at 17:30, Gijs de Rooy wrote:
Bring us back to an old discussion. This was implemented in the wiki, but
without dozens of
people voting per-aircraft it isn't very usefull... (most votings are just
the single author's 5 stars
I guess :P)
I voted! And I didn't make a
Cool, I wasn't aware of the wiki voting
Here's a random idea: if we put the wiki link for each aircraft in the
corresponding aircraft-set.xml file we could automatically link to it from
the aircraft download page ...
Curt.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Gijs de Rooy wrote:
I do like
Curt wrote:
Here's a random idea: if we put the wiki link for each aircraft in the
corresponding aircraft-set.xml
file we could automatically link to it from the aircraft download page ...
Wouldn't it be easier to create redirect in the wiki from (for example)
On 30 Nov 2010, at 18:16, Gijs de Rooy wrote:
Wouldn't it be easier to create redirect in the wiki from (for example)
http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/f-14b to
http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat
This would only require you to add a link with
Thorsten wrote
-Original Message-
From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi]
Sent: 30 November 2010 10:49
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
I'd like to let everyone know that I just finished a
James Turner wrote:
A thick-skin is a requirement for [...]
everyone who's seriously trying to survive in the FlightGear
developer's shark tank ;-)
[...], but I'd hate to do
anything which means people keep aircraft 'secret' until they are
'finished' - we already know that leads to
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
James Turner wrote:
A thick-skin is a requirement for [...]
everyone who's seriously trying to survive in the FlightGear
developer's shark tank ;-)
Any time someone criticizes my work I just watch a funny cat video like this
one
Curtis Olson wrote:
Any time someone criticizes my work I just watch a funny cat video like this
one and that really helps me feel better ...
Aaaah, good recipe, will try next time ;-)
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
I think the list is a good start , but as already mentioned , I'm my
own worst critic.
Rating my own work , I'd say decent 3d model , working FDM's but
plenty of room for improvement ,
and a FAIL for autopilot configuration .
Hopefully I can get back to work on them once life stabilizes here ,
and
42 matches
Mail list logo
