"Giles Robertson" wrote:
> 1) Fgrun/fgfs.
> For the average windows user, this is *highly* counterintuitive. In so
> far as Windows has an overarching user interface and tool design
> philosophy, it's integration. The concept of a GUI that launches the
> program doesn't make sense to them; they expect to be able to run
> flightgear, and for it to present a menu that reads something like "New
> flight"/"Saved Flight"/"Options"/"Exit".
[...]
> 3) ATC/AI
> This may just be my group of friends :P, but many of them find it much
> more fun and interesting if there are other aircraft in the world, and
> if they can communicate with ATC.
Well, I've recently seen people using M$FS with the VATSIM network to
fly in a multiplayer environment - indeed a very nice thing once you
have it up and running. After you've watched such a procedure you come
to the conclusion that lots of M$FS users must be _really_ tough
because it's a PITA to get the correct versions of the required
utilities running in the right order.
After participating in this event I'm not so convinced if you really
need a coherent UI in order to score in the Windows world ....
> * [Bug] FGFS seems to revert to KSFO if it can't find the selected
> runway at the selected airport.
To my impression there are lots of small nits that _could_ be ironed
out if people would care. I know, I am a bit ill-reputed for my
'nit-picking' but most of what has brought me this reputation is not
driven by the desire to annoy developers but instead the intention to
reduce the number of pitfalls in FlightGear.
Unfortunately posting a comment on what I think would be some sort of
'inconsistency' in FlightGear typically results in general silence
regarding the respective topic. In most cases I am not able to fix
bugs myself, I don't even have the understanding on how certain details
work in FlightGear, so the utmost I can do is to explain my concern as
precise as my knowledge of the English language allows.
Hunting for bugs was an accidentally result of my aim to get to know
the 'habits' of FlightGear in order to adjust The Manual to reality. As
I don't have much time to spend for FlightGear this resulted mostly in
trying out FlightGear functions and lack of time to tweak the manual.
This process would have been much easier if I didn't have to repeat a
bug report several times until I get any sort of feedback.
-> If FlightGear wants to release a 1.0 version that really deserves
this release number then someone would have to install a better
handling of bug-reports. I don't intend to offend anyone, I know that
ressources are very limited. This is just my opinion (and explanation)
on what is missing for a 1.0 release.
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
