thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
> "Vivian Meazza" wrote:
>> I'm afraid that your grading is no more than a beauty contest. It does
>> matter "if the gauges are all in the right place or if the cockpit is
>> complete down to the last detail". Under your grading a cockpit could be
>> a complete figment of the imagination, but by looking pretty or having a
>> wow factor it will get a high score. I would suggest that as such it has
>> little value for a Flight Sim such as ours which values accuracy
>> above all else.
> Martin wrote:
>> My own ego is not affected in any way, last but not least because I
>> didn't model any of these aircraft. But I do know some of the
>> respective real-life counterparts (mostly single engined aircraft)
>> pretty well because I'm flying these as PIC or at least as co-pilot and
>> for almost all of them I'd end up with a different rating.
> But to call it a 'beauty contest' doesn't reflect what actually happens,
> because the basic assumption to trust developers that they try to place
> gauges and levers right isn't that bad.
[... large fractions of the correspondig responses not cited here ...]
So, what actually triggers the impression of a "detailed cockpit" ? I
agree that you don't need to have a license for judging about a
simulated replica of an aircraft cockpit, but the license at least
qualifies for claiming a certain familiarity with those cockpits I've
been 'operating' in real life - and only this small subset is what I'm
talking about.
Now, when I know a cockpit from real life, when I start FlightGear with
the corresponding aircraft (or vice versa) and I'm instantly getting
the feeling "ah, this looks pretty familiar", then I very much claim
this to be a valid criteria for judging about the grade of detail _and_
realism. I suspect this effect is mostly influenced by gauges and
instruments looking familiar and being in the expected or at least a
reasonable place (especially in SEP aircraft, where there is a wide
spread in how 'optional' instruments are placed), proportions (of
instruments, gauges as well as their placement) feeling sensible,
gauges and procedures working as expected (within the limits of the
respective FDM software).
In this context I'd like to point out that the simple act of applying
photo textures let's say to the cockpit panel does _not_ necessarily
add to the feeling neither of realism nor of detail. In contrast,
quite a few of these photo textured panels make the cockpit look more
'artificial' than a stupid, coarse grey or black texture would do,
because these photo texture don't adapt to the sunlight as you would
expect (in real life).
So, if you claim that your rating is _not_ a beauty contest, then I'd
ask you: After taking the above mentioned thoughts into account, what's
left as a criteria for your rating ?
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
