-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Durk Talsma wrote: > I wasn't able to jump in yesterday, but I've been following the aircraft > selection disscussion closely. Below is a first attempt at compiling a new > list based on the various suggestion made by everybody, and weighted by me > based on my general impression of consensus. > > 737-300 -> 787 > > I think Jon Berndt suggested keeping the 737, but a few people suggested > replacing it by the 787, which seems to be our most complete jetliner. I like > to follow that suggestion. > > A-10 > > As far as I can see, nobody suggested replacing this aircraft. So I guess we > keep it. Yes, it is very detailed and nice aircraft IMO. > > bf109 -> A6M2 (Zero) > Suggested by Melchior, for ease of operations use. I think this is a good > point. The release will be the first FlightGear hands-on experience for many > people and we want to make sure that that first experience is as positive as > possible by providing aircraft that have reasonably easy handling > characteristics. Not including the bf109 for that reason is by no means a > quality judgment of the aircraft itself. > > bo105 > c172 > c172p > > Everybody seems to agree we keep these ones. > > c310 -> SenecaII > c310u3a -> Beaver > > I haven't been able to check whether the c310 and c310u3a are really two > separate aircraft, or just two different directories with shared components. > Anyhow, we unanimously agree that the c310 should be replaced by the Seneca. > The suggested replacement above seems to satisfy a few additional requests to > have the Beaver included as well. Sounds good
> > Citation-Bravo -> B1900D > > This seems a reasonable replacement, in particular since the author of the > Citation has indicated preferring that is is not part of the base aircraft > selection. One minor concern is the ease-of-use issue. IIRC, the B1900D is > fired up in "cold" configuration, and has quite a complicated start-up > procedure (things may have changed since I last checked). Complex procedures > like these may intimidate first time users. Yes the startup of B19000D is complex but the aircraft got a tutorial for it under the help menu. > > f16 -> Lightning > > Melchior reported that the f16 is broken. I haven't been able to test > recently, but seem to recall similar problems about a year ago. Jon Berndt > reported finding a possible cause, so chances are the reported problems might > get fixed in time. Still, I would like to replace the F16 for other reasons: > We need at least an AAR ready aircraft in the base package, and a carrier > ready aircraft (these are two very prominent new AI features in this release > that we want to showcase). So, how about replacing the f16 with the Ligntning > (for AAR scenarios)? I agree. > > j3cub > > A few people have a suggested dropping the cub, but given its various > qualities, I'd like to keep it. Keep. > > Hunter -> SeaHawk > > As a few people suggested, we probably need a carrier ready aircraft, and the > seahawk is advertised by the wiki carrier HOWTO as the easiest to master (and > I can confirm that its doable. :-) ). Well I think the A-6E is easier to land on carrier, but maybe I just have more experience with it. > > p51d -> (????) > > We already have one other WWII fighter. Do we really want to have two, or do > we want to have some other category of aircraft represented? > > pa28-161 -> pa24-250 > > A few people have suggested replacing the pa28-161 with the pa24-250. I > haven't tried any of those recently, but would be open to the suggestion. > > Rascal -> Bochian (or another glider) > > Many people have suggested dropping the Rascal, for being too specific, and > suggested we add a glider. Indeed we want a glider to show off areotow, and I think bocian is a good glider, however I have not flown the other gliders enough to comment on what glider is best. However: the bocian is rather large (14 MB), very detailed textures. > > T38 -> Concorde (????) > > Even though the T38 is probably a category of its own, my general impression > is that the broader class this aircraft belongs to (let's say: small > high-powered jet powered and highy manouvreable) is a bit overrepresented > (with the A10, [f16/lightning], and [Hunter/SeaHawk] being present. Considering the size of Concorde (18MB) I'm not sure this is a good idea. > > Gerard Robin suggested adding the concorde, and there are some aspects of > this > proposal I like, asit is an altogether different category. However, when > trying the condorde yesterday, I saw some performance issues (need to check > again), and also found the 3D cockpit instruments to be a bit cartoonesque. > This is probably a good candidate for future inclusion, but not quite there > yet. > > ufo > > Keep as a general exploration tool. Its fun as such. I think everybody > agrees. :-) > > wrightFlyer1903 -> Osprey/ DragonFly/maybe another historic aircraft. > > Most people suggested dropping the wright flyer. A few people suggested > adding > an ultralight. it would be nice to have a historic aircraft (as in a really > old one). During the version number discussion, somebody suggested > doing "named" releases. We could do this implicitly, by changing our choice > of historic aircraft from release to release. So 0.9.10 would have been > release "wright" in retrospect, and 0.9.11/V1.0 could become > release "bleriot". :-) > > Okay, the update has become quite long, but I wanted to make sure to capture > all my comments in one mail. I'd like to emphasize once more that dropping an > aircraft from the list should *not* be considered a negative quality > judgment. There are many additional factors that weight in, which include > completeness, variety across categories, and first-time use attractiveness > (i.e. it's easy, ready to fly, etc etc). > > There is still room for improvement. Suggestions are welcome. :-) > > Cheers, > Durk > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHV7lcWmK6ng/aMNkRCshyAJ0ZIZIIBTNAwoPdYqbpB2uFrDCOUQCfR2HN 8GrQTvvY8o5L7JlFkvi3a64= =+wro -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
