> > 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 Oh, I forgot to add this: modeling "realism" and "malfunction" code isn't really too bad. This feature specifically won't require much in the way of rework or anything even if we wait. I've had this in mind for some time (I have modeled malf.s for shuttle training simulators, USAF, NASA, etc. so this is very familiar territory). To model malfunctions properly, however, the correct behaviour has to first be there. Jon _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
