One of the original reasons for the preferences file (and heirarchy) is exactly Christian's point. Last time we had this discussion (or whatever you want to call it 8-) the conclusion was that the aircraft should either * Appear on the runway as though told to position-and-hold (which implies takeoff flaps setting, for example) and just waiting to apply power. * Appear in a parking area. For example, tiedown chains may be attached at that future time when we can simulate how an aircraft taxies like that.
Each situation should correspond to a clear breakpoint between pages of the checklist. For the former, the checklist is closed, and for the latter, the pilot is just turning over from pre-takeoff to takeoff and (in the presence of an instructor) reading ahead a little bit to engine failure grin. > Christian Mayer wrote: > > To the logical side: as long as the plane start *on* the runway it's > > IMO very unrealistical that the engine isn't running. > > Y'know, folks, this is actually a really (really) good point. :) > > There's nothing wrong with realism, but since we're cheating in the > direction of expediency in so many places already, maybe it makes > sense to make the expedient mode the default one. Maybe add a > "--pedantic" switch, perhaps, to control the engnie start code for > those who really want to do the engine start, and taxi, and runup, > etc... > > Or maybe have a "startup environment" file along the same lines as the > -set.xml aircraft files? The default one would put you on the runway > with the engine going, ready for takeoff, but fancy ones would start > you on the ramp with everything off. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
