On jeu 6 décembre 2007, 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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)? > > j3cub > > A few people have a suggested dropping the cub, but given its various > qualities, I'd like to keep it. > > 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. :-) ). > > 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. > > 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. > > 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 > Hello,
Nobody (but me) has talked about the Concorde which is highly elaborated why ? An other point. I have red that the choice in between a model A and an other model B is to choose the easier to fly. Do you mean that FlightGear is a game (versus some other FS non free). I am feeling that we are loosing the base of the values we had when FlightGear came up, a SIMULATOR nothing else. Which explain that the FDM are more and more accurate, i don't know yasim very well , but i can look at the JSBSim improvements during the last two years. The most representatives aircraft which are using it Concorde, Lockheed1049, F16 and probably some others ( if missing my apologize to the authors ) These FDM improvements, lead the authors to make model with an FDM more and more close to the real one. Yes the bf109 is difficult to take off , but because FG is not a game the author was right to do it. Our best choice should be to show that FG is a simulator (not a game), and some real aircraft which were difficult to fly, are difficult to fly in FG. Or, for the future, the authors will develop every aircraft with a FDM c172 like. It was said that f16 is broken, now, we know why, using the mouse does not makes problem, only with joystick (i did not check it) the problem happen, Jon Berndt is working on it. Regards -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ << Less i work, better i go >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
