Innis Cunningham wrote:



 Erik Hofman writes


Innis Cunningham wrote:

Seeing this is probably the first aircraft a new user will try what a
great advert.A panel that is upside down in the middle of the night
with no engines running and no obvious way of getting them started.
I mean if the idea is to discourage people from using FG I could not
think of a better way.
Reading all the other threads currently runing talking about making FG
user friendly and the new version has this.At least the 737 works maybe
it should be the default aircraft and then when people have mastered it
they can move onto something more difficult like the 172.


You seem to neglect the fact that there are certain special purpose models around that are not designed for use by the average user but that is very useful for what it's designed for.


I guess this then begs the question what is a special purpose model doing
in a release version.
Just out of curiosity what purpose does a half submerged 172 serve.
Are we working on an emergency rescue scenario. :-)


We *really* need someone to go through and sort out the C172 tree(s) ... or start from scratch with a clean directory and pull in pieces as needed from the existing bramble bush, and when the new one is all working we can retire the older stuff.

Regards,

Curt.

--
Curtis Olson        http://www.flightgear.org/~curt
HumanFIRST Program  http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/
FlightGear Project  http://www.flightgear.org
Unique text:        2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d


_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Reply via email to