One of the problems, as I pointed out earlier, is that the download size of the base package is a bit on the huge size. Including all aircrafts into an already big download will not be a good idea. So, the best option will still be removing all the work-in-progress aircrafts from the base package, and keep the size of the download to a minimium.
Ampere On October 19, 2004 06:20 pm, Boris Koenig wrote: > Hi everybody ! > > Sorry to bring this up again - Just catching up on the hundreds of > postings on both lists ... and I wanted to add the following: > > Jon Berndt wrote: > > Yes, I've made an attempt in the JSBSim config file format to include a > > "done-ness" specifier for the FDM: > > > > Beta, Alpha, Release, UNRELEASEABLE, etc. IMHO, probably ONLY Release > > models should be in the base package. > > I agree with much of what has been said so far - concerning the > reputation of FlightGear suffering from various incomplete > aircraft ... at times it's really hard to tell what's the cause > of a problem, whether it's your hardware, the simulator or a > particular aircraft ... > > So, I like the above idea, even though I don't think that it's necessary > to remove "immature" aircarft, rather one could try a compromise - > provide additional "maturity flags" within each aircraft's XML > definition file, for example: > > experimental > pre-alpha > alpha > pre-beta > beta > "okay/working" > > That way we would have one additional tag within the XML file, like: > > <maturity>alpha</maturity> > > And would thereby enable the *user* to choose what kind of aircraft > he/she wants to use. > > So, while the usual parameter > > --show-aircraft > > would currently display ALL available aircraft, we could have an > additional parameter like: > > --min-maturity-level=beta > > to return only those aircraft in the base package that match the > corresponding criteria. > > This would of course only be optional - but I think it could really > reduce some of the frustration new users encounter when first trying > out FG. > > So, one would end up having a definable maturity level for aircraft, > in order to address the issues concerning "too much realism" it > might be a good idea to also enable users to adjust the realism > level on demand - this is something that other simulators offer, too - > and it has been discussed on the devel list before ... > > One could still ship ALL aircraft, but prevent new users from trying > unfinished aircraft and drawing false conclusions. > > Probably, it would not even be a bad idea to make --show-aircraft return > by default only "relatively mature" aircraft instead of all the > experimental stuff that's in the base package ? > > If that idea is accepted I would not mind taking care of the > corresponding changes that make FlightGear return only aircraft > meeting particular "maturity" requirements, frankly spoken simply > because I was going to change one or two similar things, anyway - > e.g. I wanted to be able to tell whether a particular aircraft is part > of the base package or not, that's why I suggested some time ago to > provide an additional tag for that purpose, too. > > > > > ---------- > Boris > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users > 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
