On mercredi 10 décembre 2008, Durk Talsma wrote:
> Hi Gerard,
>
> On Wednesday 10 December 2008 13:08:57 gerard robin wrote:
> > Is it only philosophy, from me ?
> > Am i alone to think like that ?
> > Or, is there here, now, more "gamer" and less "serious" persons. ?
>
> I'm puzzled...
>
> As far as I can tell there has never been any question regaring our
> striving for realism. Personally, I don't see how the quest for a selection
> of our most advanced aircraft would be indicative of moving FlightGear
> toward a more game oriented audience. If you think it does, then please
> explain how.
>
> What is at stake here is that we do want to achieve a cross section of
> aircraft that are a good representation of FlightGear's capabilities and at
> the same time leave a positive impression. This includes a number of
> beginner level aircraft, along with a number of more advanced types.
> Obviously, the ones that are easy in FlightGear should also be easy in real
> life. Within these confinements, I don't think we ever sacrificed realism.
> You might remember that last year, at the very last minute, we decided not
> to include the Bleriot aircraft, due to it's unrealistic FDM, and replaced
> it with a very hard to fly Sopwith Camel.
>
> Suppose what would happen if we were to include aircraft that are hard to
> fly. New users would get frustrated by FlightGear, conclude that the
> program "sucks", and don't give it a second chance. However, with a few
> aircraft in the mix that are easy to fly, one would get a positive
> experience and give it a second try. Ultimately, these people may become
> permanent users, and even contributers. .
>
>
> Cheers,
> Durk
>
Hello, Durk,
I don't understand , that regression, the Concorde is not new.
Yes
it it is regression since now words like "hard to fly" are used, which sound
to me like a "criticism" of FlightGear.
These models were "hard to fly" in the past time. That is the characteristic
of the quality of the best models.
It should be used as a compliment and pushed, like in was before.
compliment to the modeler who spend time to give to his models the
most
realistic quality.
compliment to the developers of the FDMs which are more and more
accurate.
With the most realistic quality a model is never easy to fly, even the most
simple aircraft, (if the FDM and cockpit are realistic).
The best models which have the higher quality must be presented first ( and
they won't never be "easy to fly").
I hopped that with the progress of FlightGear the work of the developers , and
the know how of the FG community , we won't never fall into that so low
level of evaluation.
We are not selling ties , socks, or underware in a shop, these articles are
easy to ....
We are promotting the higher know how of our community, with these
models "hard to fly".
In the real life, does a Ferrari is easy to pilot ?
Well, i am probably alone to think like that.
Most of the users, now, are only flightsimulator people who are looking for
an other "game" , and they have chosen FG because they have not to pay for
it.
I can see that the next base package will answer their request, glad for
them.
Bad for us. :(
Regards
--
Gérard
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/
J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé.
Voltaire
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help
pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
