On Thursday, May 26, 2011 06:31:13 AM Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Vivian Meazz awrote:
> > Thanks for addressing the points that were hammered out over on the IRC
> > channel. I think the modified system could work. Just a few points
> > remain:
> >
> > There is no penalty for including systems, such as an AP, where none
> > existed on the original.
>
> There's not an explicit penalty. but I think Hal has addressed this in
> the notes
> for the System criteria:
>
> "Ignore systems not present on the aircraft IRL. If the real aircraft
> doesn't have
> a system (e.g. autopilot), the FG model shouldn't have either and if
> all systems
> in the real aircraft are modeled then it scores a 5 even if it is a
> very simple aircraft. "
>
> I'm not sure how much of a problem this is. If someone chooses not to
> disable the
> generic autopilot for a vintage aircraft, it will have no effect on
> pilots who choose
> to fly realistically (they simply won't use it).
On the p51d-jsbsim I have added a tuned autopilot but it is only available by
using the menu system since the real thing (IE. my model is as it would have
been in 1945) would not have one. But it is VERY useful for test flights so it
was worth the effort to create it. I don't think this should result in a
reduced Systems score unless it is exposed in the cockpit. So I agree with
Stuart.
> If the system is exposed in the cockpit,
> then it is covered by the rating for accuracy of cockpit - a KAP140 in
> the Sopwith
> Camel would obviously not be worth a 4 or 5 cockpit rating.
>
> I don't think it's unreasonable for vintage aircraft to have access to
> a radio, for
> example. A modern pilot flying a vintage aircraft would carry a hand-held.
I agree with this and as others have pointed out it depends on what you are
modeling - IE. how the aircraft was "back in the day" or how it might be used
today. These are really two different aircraft or at least two differenet
configurations.
>
> > The use of shaders etc. may or may not enhance the realism of the model
> > and in some cases could be used inappropriately. This is a subjective
> > assessment, and perhaps could be removed from the points system.
> >
> > Livery support is not necessarily an enhancement - it is not appropriate
> > for all models.
>
> We're talking here about the difference between a 4 or 5 External
> Model rating, where
> we're trying to differentiate between a good external model and one that is
> as realistic as possible.
>
> I think we should differentiate between them if possible, but I'm
> struggling to think
> up some objective criteria. Photo-realistic? model resolution of 5cm?
Setting up for liveries appears to be a significant non-trivial task although I
have not looked into it in detail. If the model is intended to be of a
specific aircraft as it existed at a particualr point in time then liveries
make no sense for that model. On the other hand a particular aircraft may
have a long history and using liveries would make it possible to model the
same aircraft at different points in it's history.
>
> Perhaps we end up providing subjective criteria, or some additional
> guidance in this case?
>
> > I'm not clear if you are awarding points for underwing stores and the
> > like.
>
> Hadn't thought about that at all. I've added it to the criteria for a
> "4" rating.
I would treat these as just another system. I think the systems catigory is a
difficult one because of how much difference there is between very simple
aircraft (think sailplane) and a very complex one (think Concorde). This
makes it very difficult to have a rating system that results in similar scores
for aircraft that have proportionally complete systems but that are of very
different complexity. I am not sure how to improve this but I think it is
important to keep it simple.
>
> > We have additional features such as co-pilot/RIO over MP, Wingmen,
> > Formation Control, Tutorials, Aircraft Specific Help, Contrails, Vapour
> > Trails, and there are probably some I missed.
>
> Contrails & Vapour trails should probably be covered by the external
> model, I think.
> I could add them (along with tyre smoke) as criteria for a Model 5 rating?
>
> I don't have a good answer for the other items. Some are nice-to-haves
> that enrich
> the simulation experience but don't impact simulation of flight
> itself, but others
> (such as a co-pilot) are more important for multi-crew aircraft.
>
> > And finally - the points system could award a high status to a poor model
> > - there are no points awarded for the accuracy or the fidelity of the 3d
> > model. E.G there is at least one model with afterburners modelled where
> > none existed.
>
> I've updated the external model to include the world "Accurate" for ratings
> 3-5.
>
> Of course, we're trusting that aircraft developers are going to apply the
> rating criteria accurately to the best of their ability.
>
> > Oh and, finally finally - the model with the highest score might be so
> > good that the framerate means that it can only be used on high-end
> > systems or away from detailed airports. This limitation should be noted
> > somewhere.
>
> I don't have a good answer to that. Does that become criteria for a "5" in
> External Model? I think this ends up back as something subjective.
This is also a moving target that depends on how new/high end the users
hardware is. A model that runs too slowly for some/many/most users today
will likely run at much higher frame rates in the not too distant future for
many of these users as they update their equipement. It's just the nature of
the beast that some models will need too much horse power to run on some
hardware. But hardware is cheap and getting cheaper and more powerful
everyday.
We do have some examples of high end models and at least on my mid level
hardware these all work well enough to be usable at least most of the time.
So I think this is not a critical issue.
>
> > Let's hope that this tool can help to bring some order out of the current
> > chaos.
>
> We can but try. Certainly this seems to have a bit more momentum behind it
> than previous attempts, based on the feedback here and on IRC.
>
> If enough people rate their aircraft and we can use it to provide a better
> download page for the upcoming release, it will succeed.
>
> -Stuart
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security.
> With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery,
> you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection.
> Download your free trial now.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security.
With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery,
you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection.
Download your free trial now.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
