I don't want to flog a dead horse, but you deserve answers to your questions.
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Thorsten wrote: >> 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 :) > > Compared with, say, the A-10, the F-14b or the Tu-154b (which is not in > the GIT repository) - how would you rate the c172p cockpit? Would you say > that it has the same quality, would you say that it is better or worse? Probably slightly less, if I'm honest. However, those aircraft have much more complex cockpits, which naturally adds to the apparent level of detail. >> I'm with Martin and Vivian on this - I don't believe that >> photo-textures add much to the >> "wow" factor > > Please take a look at the aircraft which actually are at the top of the > list. They don't necessarily use (as far as I can tell) photographs as > textures, but they resemble a photograph rather than rendered polygons - > textures show rust, wear and tear, gauges show glass reflections and so > on. I think the c172p could get a 'wow!' factor that way, rather than by > using actual photos as textures. I don't know if I messed up the word - > 'photo-realistic' doesn't mean 'photo-texture' in what I wanted to say, it > means that the cockpit screenshot resembles a photograph of the cockpit. I may well have mis-interpretted "photo-realistic" with "photo-texture". >> 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 ;) > > *sigh* Correlation is not causation - I seem to be unable to get that > point across. > > There is no causal relationship between visual detail and quality, i.e. it > is *theoretically* possible to make a model which scores high in visual > detail, but is low quality. *In practice*, it turns out that I find my > (vague) idea of the quality of the model usually close to the visual > detail. > > To give an example - the quality of the instrumentation/procedures in the > c172p I would rate with a full 10 of 10. The visual detail has 7 - that's > just 3 points away. If that generalizes, it means that if you pick an > aircraft with visuals 8, you are never really going to be completely > disappointed by its systems, so while the list would not really correspond > to a quality rating, it would give you some useful indication of how the > quality list is going to look like. I'd say that 3 points is quite a difference in this case. Given the number of aircraft, a new user will naturally start at the top and work downwards, and may never bother trying anything below (say) an 8. > About the worst failure of the scheme I'm aware of is the Concorde to > which I would assign 10 for procedures and instrumentation, but have rated > 5 in visuals - in all other cases I know of, visuals and > instrumentation/procedures are typically no more than 2, rarely 3 points > different. From a different perspective - take again a look at the top of > the list - the IAR 80 has emergency procedures to get out the gear without > power, the MiG-15bis has a detailed startup procedure, models stresses on > airframe, you can overheat the engine, the F-14b comes with the seeking > missiles and a really detailed radar system - I can't really see that the > scheme has moved aircraft to the top which 'just look pretty' and wouldn't > have a good measure of quality to them as well. I think my issue is that it misses aircraft that are particularly rich in other ways, and to me that seems more of an issue. >> 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 :) > > Hm, after skimming the page, there's basically a set of ko criteria for > many of the suggested schemes. I've thought about this for a while, and as > far as I understand, any scheme which could sort the whole set of aircraft > needs to be fair, needs to generalize and needs to be viable. if you're > interested in discussing only a subset of 20 aircraft, then much more > involved schemes are possible. <snip> > Applying these three requirements to proposed ideas cuts things pretty > much down. Which is why I came up with such a dumb 'visual' scheme in the > first place :-) Given sufficiently objective criteria, aircraft developers can easily evaluate their own aircraft pretty quickly and efficiently as Hal has mentioned. As others have pointed out, the developers tend to be their own worst critics (though I may be an exception with my comments on the c172p :) In the great tradition of re-inventing the wheek, I'd propose 4 criteria: - FDM - Systems - Cockpit - External Model. FDM: 0: None, or using FDM from other aircraft 1: JSBSim Aeromatic or YASim geometric model used without tuning, flaps modeled. 2: FDM tuned for cruise configuration (yes, I know we get that for free with YASim). 3: FDM tuned for rate of climb and cruise PoH performance numbers 4: FDM matches PoH in 90% of configurations 5: FDM matches PoH and most known test data. Systems: As this covers a variety of disparate areas, I think it's best just to accumulate points. E.g. 1 point each (max 5) for: - Failure modeling (Vne, +ve/-ve G, gear limits etc.) - Accurate fuel tank modeling, including cockpit controls. - Stable, non-generic autopilot with cockpit controls - Accurately modeled start-up procedures (beyond }}s) - electrical systems (alternator, battery discharge) - Other (GPWS, radar altimeters, weapon arming systems) Cockpit: 0: No cockpit 1: 2D panel, no cockpit. 2: 2D panel in 3D cockpit, or incomplete 3D panel 3: 3D panel and cockpit 4: 3D panel and accurately modeled 3D cockpit, plain texturing, Hotspots for majority of controls. 5: 3D panel and accurately modeled 3D cockpit with photo-realistic texturing. External Model: 0: None 1: Simple 3D model, no animations 2: 3D model with animated control surfaces (elevator, aileron, rudder, flaps) 3: 3D model with animated control surfaces, gear detailing (retraction), prop 4: 3D model with animated control surfaces, gear, prop, livery support. 5: 3D model with animated control surfaces, gear, prop, livery support, Ambient Occlusion effect. So, I'd rate the c172p as FDM: 3 Systems: 4 Model: 5 Cockpit: 4 That took about 30 seconds, and gives an average of 4/5, which feels about right. BTW - despite my disagreement with some of the content, thanks for doing this. I do appreciate that this took a significant amount of time to compile. -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
