> As I make my way down the list of so called "Flyable" planes, the only
> real
> contender is the B1900D - quite disheartening - really how many Cessna's
> do
> we really need?? and the rest - well they are too incomplete to fly!!
I think it depends on what sort of thing you prefer to fly. Are you
interested in GA, Airliner, historic, or military flying?
Personally, I'm generally interested in flying GA, with the occassional
foray into military jets, so having a Cessna 150, 172 and 182 is great.
Many of the military and historical planes are very high quality. The
Spitfire is fascinating.
I don't have much experience with the airliners, but the Concorde model is
very good - with moving nose etc.
However I think there is an issue that there are a large number of
not-quite-perfect aircraft which can detract from the exceedingly high
quality levels elsewhere.
Many of them are no-longer in active development, and what they really
need is a bit of extra polish - improving the panels/textures, fixing the
minor bugs to bring them up to date with the capabilities of the latest
level of FG. I'm currently working on improving the C182 so it is up to
the same standard as the 152 and 172, and apart from everything else, it
is giving me a great insight into the internals of FlightGear.
-Stuart
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-users mailing list
Flightgear-users@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
