On Friday 07 November 2003 18:23, David Megginson wrote: > Paul Surgeon writes: > > > Well what do you define as eye candy? If people don't want eye > > candy then why do we have ground textures in FlightGear? They are > > just wasting framerates. > > I'm not taking a stand in the eye-candy-vs-simulator debate, but this > particular statement is not true. Textures (and auto-placed objects > like trees) are critical for simulating VFR flight, since they > give you a reference point for judging altitude, distance, and ground > speed. The different texture types also help a bit with pilotage, > particularly the water and urban textures. > > > > I just tried this and it does go to VNE. In my experience (a few > > > hundred hours PPL, mainly C172 and C152), the C172 is modelled > > > very accurately. Did the OP chase the VSI? It has a > > > several-second lag, esp when changing attitude quickly (again, > > > this is modelled accurately), which could account for him not > > > hitting VNE. > > > > I held a 1500 fpm decent for 3 minutes from 6000 ft at full > > throttle. It seems that I have an old model although I thought > > 0.9.3 was a recent build. > > How did you start FlightGear? Were you using the default 172 that > comes up when you start FlightGear with no command-line options? You > can end up with an old model if you use > > --aircraft=172r-3d > > > All the best, > > > David
I think an eye-candy vs. dynamics/procedureal accuracy debate is a bit pointless in the context of FlightGear. Ultimately, the trend for any simulator will be towards improvements in both areas and it's really more a question of who wants to work on what and when. I don't see FG as an 'employing' project where the developers/contributers are obliged to do particular things or meet specific targets. it's fine if people want to have wish-lists or suggest ideas but no-one is obliged to do anything. If someone wants to concentrate on dynamics or procedureal accuracy that's what they'll work on and similarly, if someone else wants to work on 'eye-candy' improvements then that's what they'll do. While FG appears, to me, to be a co-ordinated project, I wouldn't describe it as a 'managed' project, as the people doing the work haven't put themselves into a 'managed' position where they can be told what to do. It seems to me, therefore, that debating eye-candy vs. dynamic/procedureal accuracy is a waste of time, and possibly harmful because the people who want to work in the area expounded by the side that loses the debate aren't suddenly going to start working in the area expounded by the side that wins it. They're more likely to start working for a different project where they feel that what they want to work on will be welcome. I welcome all improvements to FG. LeeE _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
