I'll second that - it really is good. It looks really good, and at high resolutions the frame rate is much better than the default - I've seen 60 (pa28) vs. 30 (c172) at some locations and resolutions.
The old (2D) panel code seemed to be the real killer, since I'm using much more geometry and much bigger textures in the PA-28-161.
One bug though - I don't see the instrument needles under Linux with an NVidia card. I thought you simply hadn't done them, until I saw them under Cygwin with an ATI card. I see the large tilting plane in the turn co-ordinator, and the AI, but none of the more 'needlish' needles. I've got no idea what the problem is.
I used geometry for the needles, and they must just be too narrow to show up. It's strange, because I also use Linux+NVIDIA (GeForce2Go), and the needles do show up on my system at 1600x1200.
In any case, I'll be switching to bigger quads with textures for the needles soon, and they should pop up then.
It also seems a lot easier to bleed off speed and/or height on approach by throttling back cf. the default Cessna. I would imagine they're both similar in that respect in real life, as a pilot of both can you (David M) give us some idea of which you think is more representative of real world behaviour?
They are different in this respect, though in most others, the 172 and Cherokee are comparable.
The real Skyhawk glides forever in the flare, while the Warrior has the aerodynamic characteristics of a brick when you chop power (especially with full flaps). That has its advantages -- for example, ATC can squeeze me in for an approach ahead of an Airbus or 737, and I can keep up 120 kias almost right to the runway and still touch down with the stall horn blaring. In a 172, I'd be touching down in the next county if I tried that trick (or at least, I'd have to use some pretty viscious slips).
When I first started flying the Warrior, I had a tendency to drop it in from a 6 in to a foot up, since the flare decayed so fast compared to a 172. First, I learned to recover by adding a bit of power to ease the touchdown, then I learned the different technique for a smooth landing without power (DON'T give up your airspeed too soon).
Apparently, some Cessnas are like this as well -- the most common damage history for a Cessna 182 is a bent firewall from a hard, nose-first touchdown.
All the best,
David
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
