-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Giles Robertson schrieb:
1) Fgrun/fgfs.
For the average windows user, this is *highly* counterintuitive. In so
far as Windows has an overarching user interface and tool design
philosophy, it's integration. The concept of a GUI that launches the
Christian Mayer wrote:
The first point is argueable. But that we need a restart just to change
planes is a big show stopper!
It depends on the goals for 1.0. If you want a version that is easy to
use for the end user then you might be right. If v1.0 is aimed for a
completely working standalone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Erik Hofman schrieb:
Christian Mayer wrote:
The first point is argueable. But that we need a restart just to change
planes is a big show stopper!
It depends on the goals for 1.0. If you want a version that is easy to
use for the end user
Giles Robertson wrote:
1) Fgrun/fgfs.
For the average windows user, this is *highly* counterintuitive. In so
far as Windows has an overarching user interface and tool design
philosophy, it's integration. The concept of a GUI that launches the
program doesn't make sense to them; they expect
Jim Wilson wrote:
Probably I've got this wrong, but isn't the c-172 our most refined/realistic
flightmodel? My impression of yasim, from using it for the p51d, but not as
an aero engineer, is that getting an aircraft working is about 2 parts theory
and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic
Let me steer this discussion in another direction ...
I would really love to start talking about doing a v1.0 release of
FlightGear ... maybe this spring or early summer. There are a couple
3. Fix the JSBsim low speed gear jitters. Here's my one and only *big*
gripe about JSBsim ... gear
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 15:38, Jon Berndt wrote:
I hear you. Coincidentally, I was thinking of this last night: what do we
(JSBSim) need to do before we finally call it a production 1.0 release? The
gear problem is the first thing I thought of, as well. Right now I am so
focused on getting
Jon Berndt wrote:
I hear you. Coincidentally, I was thinking of this last night: what do we (JSBSim) need to
do before we finally call it a production 1.0 release? The gear problem is the first thing
I thought of, as well. Right now I am so focused on getting the new configuration file
format
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
1. Documentation (getting started manual) really needs to be made current.
Indeed, I spend too much time lingering around with portability
stuff or other sorts of distraction lately. I'll go on and move the
focus,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just
* Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-01-20 15:30]:
4. We need to do some work on the fgrun front end to make it more user
friendly. Frederic and Bernie (and others?) have done a *lot* of great,
difficult, and tedious work on this tool to bring it to where it is, but
there are still
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:45:37 -0600, Curtis wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jon Berndt wrote:
I hear you. Coincidentally, I was thinking of this last night: what
do we (JSBSim) need to do before we finally call it a production 1.0
..aye. But if we need 0.9.10, 0.9.11, 0.9.12 releases
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've tried introducing a few friends to Flightgear. They are mostly
Windows users, technically competent but not adept, who have had
experience of video games and possibly other flight simulators. I
thought I'd muse a bit on the following points,
3) ATC/AI
This may just be my group of friends :P, but many of them find it much
more fun and interesting if there are other aircraft in the world, and
if they can communicate with ATC. Durk's work in this area is making
this easier, but ATC itself can still feel quite primitive. Coupled
On Thursday, 20 January 2005 19:49, Giles Robertson wrote:
1) Fgrun/fgfs.
For the average windows user, this is *highly* counterintuitive. In so
far as Windows has an overarching user interface and tool design
philosophy, it's integration. The concept of a GUI that launches the
program
Personally i think it is too early for a 1.0 release.
Here are some points why:
1. The gear problem, Jon Berndt allready mentioned it.
On the ground the planes just don't feel good.
2. An in game GUI for every user (not only Windows users) is
missing. This is IMHO a big must for a 1.0
Oliver C. wrote
FlightGear has gone a long way, but imo it is still far too early for a 1.0
production release.
Hey, there is a life after 1.0. Why not 1.1, 2.0 etc...
Trying to reach the perfection the first shot is the best way to drag
our 0.x forever that make feel that FG is still in
On Thursday 20 January 2005 21:25, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Oliver C. wrote
FlightGear has gone a long way, but imo it is still far too early for a
1.0 production release.
Hey, there is a life after 1.0. Why not 1.1, 2.0 etc...
Trying to reach the perfection the first shot is the best way
Oliver C. wrote:
FlightGear has gone a long way, but imo it is still far too early for a
1.0 production release.
a way to switch the
aircraft and airport when flightgear is running as basic features
which are a must have in a 1.0 production release.
I agree, and to be at startup or not,
18 matches
Mail list logo
