On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:07:22 -0000, Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Also I think I would have considered cutting the c310, even though it
> is the only light twin.  The u3a cockpit was my very first 3D project and it
> really isn't too spiffy.  It would be very nice to have a civilian c310 (maybe
> we should just repaint the u3a and call it a c310b?).  Gotta keep in mind that
> we are still releasing the aircraft and it really doesn't pay to have a very
> large base package.  In any case, I'll work on untangling the cross
> dependencies in the c310* folders.

The C310 is of great historical importance for FlightGear -- when I
started work on developing its flight model in JSBSim, we had no
support at all for multi-engine aircraft, and it prompted a lot of
significant architectural changes to both JSBSim and FlightGear.  I
think I might agree with Jim, though, that even though we should have
a light twin modelled, neither of our C-310 models has seen enough TLC
to justify throwing it at end-users.  Perhaps leaving it out of the
base package will spur one of us to put more work into it or to
develop alternative light piston twin, like the Beech Baron, Piper
Seneca, Piper Aztec, Cessna 340, etc.

If we do include it, I also agree with Jim that it should be in
civilian livery, not US military.  I have no trouble with warbirds
appearing in military livery, but there's no point going out of our
way to show dual-use civilian/military planes that way, at least not
in the default base package.

All the best,



Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to