On jeudi 11 décembre 2008, James Sleeman wrote: > Changing subject, getting off the original topic a lot... > > gerard robin wrote: > > Your definition => when if takes 5 hours that is easy to fly. > > You misunderstand me I think, I probably said it badly and apologise for > that. > > You said in your email: > > "The best models which have the higher quality must be presented > first ( and they won't never be "easy to fly")." > > Ignoring the double negative, effectively this means you seem to say > that if an aircraft is "easy to fly" it is not a good (best) model.
> > There is a heck of a lot involved in flying a Concorde, while in a (say) > 172 you can turn the key, push the throttle, keep it pointed roughly > down the runway, and you are well on the way to getting the hang of it > (ignoring the real world concerns which do not affect the new sim pilot, > such as mortality, reset is free and infinite). > > This does not mean that the 172 model is bad or even "not best" (it has > been discussed recently the "goodness" of this model, and you yourself > classed it with the Concorde), just that the aircraft is inherently, at > it's most basic level, "easy to fly". > > NB: By model I refer to the model in it's entirety, including visual, > interactive, FDM, and aural. > > Hello James, It is my turn to apologize , if these words from me, make you to conclude in that way. It is only a question of definition. I did not use the "hard to fly" first , that adjective had been stuck to Concorde, for some reasons which are not mine. To me ANY model which is well done, realistic is a model difficult to fly. The mail of Joe demonstrate, that when we are getting in touch, the first time with FG and the aeronautical world, everything is difficult, not to turn the key and to pull the stick , but to understand what are the rule, what is the meaning of the instruments etc... Since i am not sure about your understanding of what is a "hard to fly" , i won't give that definition to the c172p. The c172p is a "serious" model with a huge cockpit. So serious, that my proposal to modify the offset was rejected. :) C172p has, ever been, for me, difficult to fly, and since, i am from the old school ( you understood it), i had not been, to get the AP working. I had to learn. Yes, any completed model with the right Cockpit, and the right FDM is difficult to fly, with FG simulator. In anycase, the same aircraft , in the real life is more difficult to fly. As far as i know, in the real life nobody is able to fly an aircraft the first time, turning the Key and pulling the stick, (and if fortunately that person is able to get in air, i cannot describe what would happen when landing ), without any help and training (like you said before). So, i ever said that a completed model (any model) is difficult to fly. To me "Best Models" means nothing, there is models which are the result of a hard work and research, and the translation of it, using the features which are offered by the FG FDM developper, The best compliment to them is to make the most realistic model with it, like the compliments to Andy with the F-14, or the compliments to Jon with the Concorde. There is a lot of models here which answer that criteria, ALL of them are ...if i use your word ....the "Best" Now i suspect that there is others arguments (not said) , which make the choice to keep, or to remove a basic model. I maintain my opinion regarding the regression. That regression could be an adventage ! Why not ? The modelers will not have to dig into and to gather a lot of documentation, before starting a model. Only a drawing with some photos , with a more or less generic FDM attached to it, will be enough. Less work to do. CVS will get very quickly more than 500 models, "easy to fly" :) :) Don't ask to Detlef , Vivian, the "Ghost Author" of Concorde, and many others model developers ( i am not trying to give an "Oscar") how many time they spend to make their model. Not the time to make the 3D drawing ( which is, to me, more or less 15% of the work on a model) but everything else cockpit, FDM...... Cheers -- 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
