>
> I think we'd have to get a little bit more precise here.
> _I_ understand
> FlightGear's goal of development for aircraft/heli FDM's to
> get "as
> close as possible" to the flight characteristics of the
> real aircraft.
> Think of someone connecting a set of real helicopter
> controls to
> FlightGear and putting a skilled pilot into the seat.
> Is this pilot
> going to experience flight performance similar to what he'd
> experience
> on the real aircraft ?
>
> At least some people apparently had been quite happy with
> the previous
> state ("Maik's") of the Alouette II FDM, thus I assume
> there might be a
> point.
>
> Not sure if this really belongs into a discussion about the
> fidelity of
> a helicopter FDM ....
>
> Cordialement,
> Martin.
I agree in everything Martin said.
To make it clear: My issue with the fdm wasn't the fact that an
easy-to-fly-but-false one has been developed. It is o.k. and I can understand
that a lot of people wishes something like that.
My issue was that it wasn't added as another selectable option as proposed by
Curt, Ron and me. Instead the fdm has been simply replaced, even without asking
their original author, which is in my eyes not very respectful.
As it seems that it indeed can be solved that easily as proposed, as helijah
wants to change it so we can have both fdms beside, everyone inluding me will
be happy now, and the discussion can be ended.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know!
Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its
next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran
developers boost performance applications - including clusters.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
