David Megginson said: > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:38:49 -0600, Curtis L. Olson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I would tend to agree with you with one exception. The default C-172 is > > very functional, but it is not our best model. A nice thing about > > including multiple aircraft is you can see some different nice things > > that can be done with FG aircraft. I think before we go with only 1 > > aircraft in the base package, we should really spiff up the C-172 > > externals and internals. Suspention animation, shadows, lights, and a > > much better 3d cockpit. If we go with only one aircraft, it should be > > really nice all around, and show off what we can do in FG. > > That sounds reasonable. For my own part, I'll see if I have time to > do more work on the Cherokee/Warrior, which would be a reasonable > alternative starter plane (as would any other trainer, such as the > Cessna 150/152, Beech Musketeer, or even Diamond Katana, if anyone is > interested in building one of those). The J3 Cub is probably the most > famous trainer in history, but the tailwheel ground handling is too > hard for most new users to manage. >
Probably I've got this wrong, but isn't the c-172 our most refined/realistic flightmodel? My impression of yasim, from using it for the p51d, but not as an aero engineer, is that getting an aircraft working is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic formulas don't cover). Best, Jim _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
