On ven 7 décembre 2007, Hans Fugal wrote: > The aircraft discussion has been interesting. One stumbling block I've > come across when deciding which aircraft to download before is the > quality guessing game. The web site lists the author's assessment, but > I've found that to be less useful than it could be, because some > authors say "alpha" when in fact the plane is much better than one > which says "production", esp in the case where a "production" plane > has bitrotted. The subjective judgement by different people is not a > good basis for making decisions. For me personally, the decision in > question is not the download itself but the hassle of putting the > downloaded file in the right place and firing up flightgear for a test > flight. For others with slower internet the download may be the big > thing. > > I'm not sure what the solution is, but here's a few random ideas. > There could be one person that assigns the subjective quality tags, > maybe out of a set, e.g. "flies, 3d, realistic" or "2d, crashes" or > whatever. Maybe a committee of 2 or 3, or 2 or 3 individuals that have > agreed on what each tag means. > > Another possibility is some kind of user voting system, but I like > that idea less and it probably means more work. > > Another idea is writing up some guidelines on how the authors should > describe the plane in the status field, so that even though it's still > a subjective description by many individuals, at least they are based > on some common ground. > > Just my $0.02.
You are right that is the problem. How to do with. It must be discussed here. When delivering a model, i usually say "it is only 15% done". Why ? Making the 3D model "shape" is the easiest (5% of the work, more or less 24 hours of work, but very complicated shape) In spite of an acceptable eye candy: =>animations done (which include the landing gear with compression extension) =>a 3D cockpit, with some instruments =>an FDM which seems to be right in order to "play" with it There is a lot of stuff to do: =>the cockpit must completed (versus the A10, Alexy has spent so many time to do it) =>the 3D model is missing a lot of details (maybe the user did notice it, but the author knows it) =>An improvement of the texture, and probably some variants =>the FDM which not right, close to the real one, must be done fully We could try to define some estimated values A, B, C, for each main components theses values could be defined within a range previously defined not by the author only, but by the community. I guess it could be useful for the devel-modeler, sometime the author is going on a lot of details, which could lead to "the perfect is the enemy of the good". Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ << Less i work, better i go >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
