* gerard robin -- Wednesday 05 December 2007: > On mer 5 décembre 2007, Melchior FRANZ wrote: > > You mean, we have to ship FlightGear v1.0 with as many broken aircraft > > as working ones, for "balancing reasons"? :-}
> Broken ??? > I don't understand, these aircraft are not broken. That was just irony. I suggested not to include the f16 because it's broken. And you said it's wonderful and we need more JSBSim aircraft for balancing reasons. Yes, the selection should be "balanced". A representative of every class that the users would be interested in, especially well done ones (with 3D cockpit) that don't consume excessive disk space, but more importantly: download volume. And they should be flyable, too. I couldn't care less which FDMs they use. I'd have no problem if they'd all be JSBSim or all YASim. The receivers probably give a damn about the FDM. The selection is for them, not for us. And if tried to be balanced, then what about UIUC and LaRCSim? Yes, the f16 is broken. I just tried it. After a few minutes you see how the FCS is starting to misbehave. The f16 starts pulling to the right and up, etc. That's most noticeable after you had it parked for some minutes. It can become completely unflyable. I don't see use ship a broken aircraft that the authors didn't care to fix despite several bug reports. But well, I don't decide that anyway. m. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
