Hi Thorsten, Thanks for writing. I've got a couple of comments.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Thorsten Renk wrote: > I get the impression that some people believe that Local Weather is a > temporary, experimental thing. That's actually not my position. I assigned > a version number larger than 1.0 because for me it is a stable, mature, > well-performing system (running on a 3 year old Linux laptop) and no more > or less experimental or temporary than the rest of Flightgear (which means > it can always be better, but doesn't need to be so urgently). I think the one reason for this view is the level of integration with the FG core, where you've had to work hard to override the global weather system through no fault of your own. I think with better integration, the local weather package will feel much more part of the whole. The other aspect is usability/simplicity, which I think is the nub of the problem and where we disagree. > The third issue that bugs me is the expectation of simplicity. Usually in > Flightgear, it is just accepted that things can be complicated. Flightgear > is not an arcade game, if I want to fly the P-51D, I have to learn how to > takeoff, that's complicated. Nobody here asks to simplify the FDM so that > everyone can take off. But somehow, for a weather GUI, we should be back > to arcade mode where a mouse click and a single performance slider should > be all it takes. I don't really understand why - the argument for me is > still the same - we're trying to be a realistic simulation, weather in > reality is complicated, so why do you expect arcade-game like > configuration? I think that comparison is flawed, as a user starts FG with the intention of simulating aircraft in flight, and weather simulation is really a secondary consideration. I think if it is possible and sensible to simplify the configuration, we should do so. > In fact, weather is so complicated that if we introduce more and more > realism one has to make a choice what to focus on (dependent on available > performance, that can be a hard choice or not) - the system isn't designed > to run in 'one mode fits all', it's designed to commit resources to what > is most important, given the type of flight you plan. > > As an example, when I fly airliners, I'm not interested in simulating > cloud movement (doesn't show with 250+ kt airspeed anyway) or thermals (do > not occur at 30.000 ft) - but I am interested in seeing clouds as far out > as possible (because that's what I see from 30.000 ft). I move my sliders > accordingly. > > When I fly a glider, I'm very interested in thermals, moving clouds > (thermals and cap clouds must move with the wind, otherwise the experience > isn't very realistic) - but I am not interested in large visibility range, > since I'm pretty much level with the convective layer anyway - so I do the > configuration drastically different. > > If you take a moment to think about these issues, a system can't make the > choice for you automatically, because it depends on what kind of flight > you want to make. So you have to do it yourself. Or get a system that is > so scaled down in performance that it gives you the minimal 'one fits > all'. On the contrary, I think the two examples you give suggest a very simple heuristic, which is to decrease the resolution of the weather model as speed or altitude increases. I think this could be combined with a performance/quality slider in a similar way to the shader slider. As you say in your documentation, a number of the features (dynamic weather, thermals) are only really of interest to those flying low and slow. > It seems applying two different measures to me to widely accept that > aircraft systems can be very complicated and that people need to read a > manual to start the engines, but to expect that an (optional!) weather > system is simple to configure and yet delivers best performance. Being very blunt, this is after all primarily a _flight_ simulator rather than a _weather_ simulator. ;) As Vivian has mentioned, people don't read the normal manual, and the Local Weather configuration really does require close reading of the documentation. As it stands, most users will not read the documentation, and will struggle to enable and effectively use this feature. I think that is a great shame, as it provides a much more interesting weather environment than the global alternative. IMO, by making some design decisions we can simplify the interface, provide users with the right balance of performance and quality without requiring that they tune every last parameter, and increase the number of people who can make use of this feature massively. I think that is something that is worth working towards, and I am very happy to lend a hand to help achieve this. -Stuart ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on "Lean Startup Secrets Revealed." This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
