On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Martin Spott wrote: >> 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 ? > > Martin, I see no need to repeat myself over and over. Please read the > explanations I have given so far, if you feel dissatisfied there is a > factor of three times more explanation, response and disclaimer in the > forum. > > If you think the scheme is grossly flawed, please point to a specific > example where, then we can discuss that, maybe that's more productive.
One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of the maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to your criteria :) The cockpit interior is complete, down to panel lighting switches, parking brake handle etc. There may be a slight mis-alignment issue with regard to the fuel gauge and clock, but other than that, there really isn't anything further required. I don't think adding photo textures would add significantly to the look and feel, and in fact might detract from usability given the constraints on resolution, screen space view angle inherent in a simulator. I'm with Martin and Vivian on this - I don't believe that photo-textures add much to the "wow" factor, and I also agree with Vivian that this isn't really a particularly good indication of quality. However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder ;) As Curt and others have pointed out, there certainly is a place for rating aircraft to publicise those that are hidden gems, and your list is certainly going to make me look at some new aircraft. I think a more fruitful approach would be to formalize various rating requirements, such that anyone can evaluate an aircraft against largely objective criteria. This would remove the need for one person to evaluate all the aircraft, which as you've pointed out is a herculean task. Such ratings would certainly need to include cockpit quality, and your criteria would form a good basis, even if we disagree on the importance of photo-textures :) This has been discussed many times on the list and elsewhere before, but the actual criteria have never been really agreed, and the ratings (which one would want to encode into the -set.xml file) have never been implemented. There's a wiki page that discusses this here: http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Formalizing_Aircraft_Status Personally, I prefer a numeric rating system as you have created, and a limited number of areas - possible just FDM, systems, cockpit and exterior model. I particularly like the option you've provided to add and extra point - it could be used to indicate a particularly nice feature not covered by the criteria itself, for example well modeled failure modes. The FDM is possibly the hardest to define, but I think it is certainly possible - from a basic Aeromatic or YASIM geometric model, through models that meet the PoH climb, cruise numbers to those like the P51d-JSBSim that match flight test data. -Stuart ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
