Thorsten wrote > -----Original Message----- > From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi] > Sent: 30 November 2010 10:49 > To: FlightGear developers discussions > Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating > > > I'd like to let everyone know that I just finished a project assigning > each aircraft model/cockpit a number between 0 and 10 indicating the > visual level of quality of the cockpit. The results can be found in the > forum here: > > > http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10080 > > Why did I do this? > ================== > > My prime reason is that this is information I would like to have as a > Flightgear user. Faced with 400+ aircraft, I was often annoyed to download > one and see that it was basically unfinished in spite of the official > status indicator. Eventually I gave up and stuck with the few aircraft I > knew well - which means that I completely missed some truly great > aircraft. To give an example, I think the Pipers (pa-22-160, > pa24-250-CIII,...) are really great models with lots of attention on the > proper handling of the on-board systems - and I only found them just now > (and am enjoying them since). > > I did not do the list to en- or discourage developers. If an aircraft is > still under development, and it scores low in visual detail, there is no > shame in that - a low score means nothing but 'needs more developement'. > More explanations and disclaimers in the forum. > > What do the numbers mean? > ========================= > > Roughly, anything below 5 means that it isn't really finished and that I > think they should be alpha status. 7 and 8 are really nice cockpits, and 9 > an 10 usually create a spontaneous 'wow!'. > > > What does the list represent? > ============================= > > On face value, the list represents my partially subjective, partially > objective judgement of the visual quality of a cockpit. > > After having made it however, there appears to be more to it. There is > usually a correlation between the level of detail of the modelling of > systems and procedures and the level of visual detail in the cockpit - > realistic procedures require more gauges and buttons, and immediately the > cockpit increases in detail. About the weakest correlation in this respect > is the Concorde, which is very detailed in procedures and in modelling > systems, but scores only a 5 in visual detail. Usually, the correlation is > way better. > > There is also a (weaker) correlation between visual quality of the cockpit > and the FDM - planes with great cockpits tend to have at least a better > than average FDM. I think that's because developers who spend long time > researching cockpit photographs usually don't ignore the FDM. > > The list is unfair in the sense that there are planes with really great > and well-tuned FDMs which don't score too high on the visual detail. The > problem is that it is impossible to make a similar list for the FDM > quality for all 400+ aircraft in a finite amount of time. But I think all > in all the list does tend to draw attention to the aircraft Flightgear can > be really proud of. > > What do I want to do with it? > ============================= > > Basically nothing - it's up to the community what to do with the numbers > and thumbnails. Options which have at one point or the other mentioned and > discussed in the forum range from doing nothing nothing via creating a > Wiki page using the numbers or introducing options on the download website > and in fgrun to sort aircraft acccording to the rating all the way to > structuring the FGData on GIT according to status. > > I clearly can forsee useful applications, but I consider my work done at > this point, and it's not up to me to decide if e.g. any sorting scheme for > aircraft downloads is useful or not. > > * Thorsten > >
Hmm - interesting. Are you sure you know what you are seeing? Your #2 is the Seahawk. It is a full 3d representation of the actual aircraft derived from the pilot's notes. There are no omissions from the main panel, although there are some secondary controls missing from the cockpit sidewalls, omitted in the interests of frame rate. I will at some stage tinker with the gunsight, but beyond that I have nothing to improve on the main panel. If technology permits I will add stuff to the cockpit sidewalls. Vivian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App & Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base & get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
