> > I'd say "first things first". We have various levels within the flight model > and we are getting somewhat spotty with high detail in some areas and no > detail in others.
My point exactly. > I'd sooner wait with this one just a little bit until we get all the bugs worked out of the current level. >I suppose we ought to > create a list of priorities and basic capabilities we are lacking and go for > those before we go on to the finer details like realism and random failures. > You think? I proposed that as an example, but you need to design in the ability for expansion now or you might wind up ripping out a lot of code later. IMHO you need to start worrying about weight and balance now, before some of the other items on the table. I don't see anything to account for # of pax and crew, cargo/luggage, fuel load, and tips. Modeling more complex systems is not a geometric progression, it may not even be exponential, NP? Sorry, I'm preaching to the choir. JW _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
