I agree, I think a business jet (or very light jet but we have none to my knowledge) is an important class, at least compared to adding a second twin prop.
On Dec 6, 2007 2:14 AM, Fabian Grodek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In general I agree with Durk. > The only issue is that if we drop the Citation we would end-up with no > bussiness jet class aircraft, which are high performance machines (compared > to props), easier to fly than an airliner (787), and with its own > limitations (as compared to fighters - F16). Also a Very Light Jet would be > popular nowadays, but I guess there is still no simulation model available > yet. > Fabian > > > > > On 12/6/07, Durk Talsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > -- Hans Fugal Fugal Computing ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
