Martin Spott wrote: >John Wojnaroski wrote: > > > >>As Curt noted we've already crossed over into the "twilight zone". If >>you're opposed to the idea then lets remove ALL models of military >>aircraft AND civilian derivatives and ALL operations that have a >>military/combat purpose (e.g: tacan, HUDs, air-to-air refueling, carrier >>operations, etc). By the same token, if you are of this opinion and use >>any of these models or features your argument and position seems a >>little disingenuous. >> >>I've not done a count by type of the aircraft in Flightgear, but there >>are a large number of military aircraft which are designed and built for >>one reason only and one reason only -- combat or combat support. I'm >>not a big fan of selective morality -- "Oh, I like to fly these >>airplanes and build the models, but... >> >> > >Sorry, John, this has nothing to do with "selective morality" - as you >allege. After reading these lines I'd say you have severe difficulties >telling the difference between flying and shooting/killing. > Ooooooo, I don't think so.....
>To make understanding it easier: Many/most of the old but also the >modern warbirds are fascinating aircraft from a technical as well as >from an aviatic point of view - no doubt. Yet this is significantly >different from actually performing the shooting at some other aircraft >or dropping bombs. > > Ahhh, so the basis for acrobatic manuevering was... and the reason you need to put 9G's on your body is..... Your first point is quite correct, but again fly them to you heart's content and DON'T complain if others wish to do the same and simulate combat. That is all I am saying, >>Flightgear is more than a game and while there are highly sophisticated >>and sound engineering elements to the code I would not classify it as a >>true flight simulator, rather within a context of lower, limited >>applications. For a *real* flight simulator one might consider: >> >> >[... lots of interesing features ....] > >Certainly not all of these features are part of FlightGear's >development goals - multi-platform portability for example excludes >using only RTOS' exclusively as foundation of the simulation. >Nevertheless you should consider that the fidelity of such a simulation >is always depending on how much manpower is available for implementing >these features. You sound a bit like a weisenheimer by judging the >goals of the FlightGear project just by features that are _currently_ >not implemented. > Let's be clear, FlightGear is not a game, nor is it a simulator. Of course, an RTOS precludes multi-platform portability and given that as a goal the features mentioned are difficult if not impossible to implement or simply so labor/team intensive that it is impractical to attempt without a significant financial investment. But don't allude to the fact that FlightGear is a flight simulator any more than FS200x is a flight simulator, or X-Plane or any other PC product for that matter. Regards John W. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
