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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > > I dont quite understand this argument over the Concorde ... I dont care much for 2d instruments pasted on a 3d panel , so I dont fly it.Not a very logical reason , I know , but the ongoing discussion doesn't make any more sense , since most new users start downloading cvs aircraft once they get bored with the included ones.... So as a vote of support , I'll be content with whatever Durk decides , since he IS the one putting this together . Cheers :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
