On 16 Oct 2004 at 11:28, Andreas wrote: > So, are you saying that all planes that behave in an odd way are > actually modelled correctly? Can this be said about version 0.9.6, for > example? > If not, then the point is to move those planes that are still work in > progress to somewhere else, like the --verbose thing I mentioned earlier. > The 737 model, for example, clearly states that it's a beta version. I > don't know regarding what, if the fdm or the panel (which doesn't work > very well, for example).
Andreas, I recently had a discussion here about "odd behaviour" of several planes, including the 172 1981 model which still is about the only one that I can enjoy in my FGFS. People mentioned the torque effects, and I got it about under control, but despite that it's still the only decently behaving plane in my setup. I thought I had a messed up setup, which was done by running one installer over another one, then upgrading the fgfs.exe file to the latest one, but when I did it as it should have been done, there was no difference at all. I kept my mouth shut but now I see I'm not the only 1. It cud be handy to have all alpha and beta models in a separate dir, with a big sign "Experimental! Operate at own risk"... As for the panels: I've been using Fly since day 1, even bought Fly2! later. Maybe the fdm's aren't the best, at least panels work like they should work. Also AP's work like they should work; if there is someone who claims flight NWA052 is done purely by hand from Frankfurt to destination this person lies. A 737 cud be a nice one to do some trips with in FG, but a working AP would be even nicer. As long as that isn't the case, I'd suggest to move the bird into the "experimental dir". Louis _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
