Le jeudi 02 décembre 2010 09:45:04, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi a écrit : > Henri wrote: > > Please don't fall in the MSFS policy, when the eye candy is the main > > approach. > > I don't see 'accuracy' and 'visual detail' as mutually exclusive - you can > have both. I for once am interested in 'realism' in a simulator. I didn't explain correctly my point,: I don't reject any 'visual detail', but, if it makes the instrument unusable. When we are in a real cockpit, we can notice that every instruments are protected from the reflecting light effect. We can read it in any condition ( but blackout :-( ). The real panel will reflect the minimum of light, and some of them reflect nothing, thanks to the Engineers. Some cockpit/instrument within FG have visual detail which avoid any realistic usage of the instruments, thus we cannot talk simulator, that is only art painting. To me the cockpit rating must, mainly, take in account that point. > An > important part is that the aircraft behaves like an aircraft, rather than > an antigrav vehicle. But part of that is also the visual impression - that > metal surfaces look like metal and clouds look like clouds is for me part > of the immersion experience in the simulation (and yes, I am bugged by the > fact that they behave weird in aerobatics - I just can't fix it...). I > like to look out of the window and watch the terrain and clouds go by.
no problem > > I realize fully well that there are also people who are mainly interested > in IFR flight who would probably be equally fine with a wireframe terrain > or no terrain at all - but not everyone is like that. Equally well, while > you think it is sufficient that an instrument is readable, I enjoy the > experience more if it looks like a real instrument. Flying IFR does not mean to me wireframe terrain or nothing but Atmosphere. We are talking about cockpit, which do not reject every external effect. At any altitude, in a real cockpit we can see the outside environment. > > > A cockpit must be close to the real one, instrument position, and > > functionality > > There may not be 'the' real cockpit. The ASK-13 cockpit in Flightgear has > instruments arranged differently from the ASK-13 I have flown in real > life. Should this disagreement in positioning bother me? I have an > altimeter in front of me, a vario, airspeed gauge, they look like they > should, they work - and I just assume it's not the same aircraft and has a > different cockpit arrangement. Yes it could be, like it could be, some variant, or some customized panel. There is old Aircraft in use in the Club, bought by some fortunate persons which where modified/adapted. My best example is the Stampe SV4C. There is a lot of others. > > And naturally instruments must be functional (I didn't say it anywhere > because it seemed obvious, but instrument fakes, i.e. photo-textures of > gauges which are not operational didn't count as detail in my rating - > they count as 'empty spots'). > Which is a long test, since a model instrument could seem to be right, when the model is on ground. At least an airborn, climb up to the celling of the aircraft and land on another Airport. Let say 20 min per Model. 400 models. 8000 min spent flying => 133 hours Hard to do. Thanks for your work Alva ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
