Hi Jack,
> > I think the BO-105 could be replaced with either the EC-135 > or AH-1. > The state of the BO-105 cockpit is not very good at the > moment, and a > great visual model along with a good FDM is what we want. Interesting. You want to see another aircraft than the 777 because the fdm is not realistic, but you don't want to see a chopper where the fdm is highly realistic and already prooved by a real pilot. As beeing the main author of the Ec-135 and Ec-130 I vote against including of my models due to said reasons. > > I think I may set up a poll for informational proposes to > help see > what the majority really wants, as with some of the replies > in this > thread I cannot tell what some people believe should be > done about > these aircraft. First this is not what the majority of USERS wants- that's what the majority of DEVELOPER's and release managers wants. Then the base package should show what FGFS is capable of and what's special about. Our realistic helicopter-fdm is special so we include a helicopter model which has a very realistic fdm: currently it is the bo105 and the UH-1. The UH-1 has some issues, so it will be quite sure that it will be the Bo-105! > > Another developer did a lot of work on the BO-105 cockpit > semi- > recently, but his work was prevented from being committed > to GIT by > the BO-105's original author. (His motives for denying the > work from > GIT were a load of horse manure if you ask me.) We had this dicussion already. Every developer has the right to refuse any contribution. You have the right on your AH-1 as well. And though it is a pity that Horacio's work hasn't been included, the right of the main developer to decide what contribution he will accept is above all. > > As for the Dragonfly, the performance just seems unreal, > thought I've > never flown on myself. I think we could replace it with the > Dromader, > a much higher detail aircraft with a pretty extensively > detailed FDM. The Dragonfly seems not unrealistic to me. But yes, adding the Dromader would be good idea though. > > I would also like to suggest that the MiG-15 be added as a > default > aircraft, since it's extreme detail and realism is far > beyond that of > any other aircraft we have. Literally every switch, knob > and button > works and has an effect, and every airframe limit is in the > FDM. Would be also not that bad. > > I do have one question, though. Every flightgear > installation includes > an aircraft called "FG Video Assistant". It wont even start > up. If I > select and launch it, flightgear simply crashes at loading > aircraft. > What is the (intended) purpose of this aircraft? I think it > should > either be removed or repaired, as any aircraft that causes > flightgear > to crash may decrease a users opinion of the simulator. --> Bug tracker. The purpose was to have a camera assistent, and it worked quite good in the past. > > I'll see if I can think of any more aircraft we can > replace/add. Proposals are welcome, but it will be decided later with counting all votes given here on the list. At least that way it worked the last years. Heiko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
