Am Samstag, den 11.12.2010, 16:00 -0800 schrieb Hal V. Engel: [...] > The thing about Stuart's system is that it is very objective, easy for devs > to apply (IE. it is not complex and only takes a few minutes to do) and > provides users with a lot more information about the state of the models > development. But it could also be used to make the current system more > objective and more consistent.
Objectivity is very hard to achieve, given the fact that most FDMs are guesswork regardless how well the numbers fit. Judging the FDM of an Aircraft which one hasn't flown is walking on thin ice and will most certainly lead to bad mood. Starting point of the discussion were Users complaining about too much incomplete Aircraft on the download Page (which is undoutably so). I'd say it's up to the developer to decide wether the current state is usable (from a Users point!) or not. I assume we don't want a "Top Ten" Ranking System, which in my opinion would spoil all fun in Aircraft Developing (and I wouldn't participate). > For example we could decide that only certain > values will be used for status such as: > > not rated > alpha > beta > early production > production > advanced production > I'd agree to the scheme, anything lower than early production woludn't appear on the Download page. Criterea should be the Usability of the Aircraft. A basic flight and engine instrumentation should be mandatory and an FDM which is flyable and doesn't exaggerate published performance values too much. Greetings ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oracle to DB2 Conversion Guide: Learn learn about native support for PL/SQL, new data types, scalar functions, improved concurrency, built-in packages, OCI, SQL*Plus, data movement tools, best practices and more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
