RE: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear review in FlightXPress
Arnt, Does the magazine ever mention http://eaa.org/ type planes? Geek fliers build their planes. ;-) No. ..how about flight dynamics in the review? ..I'm curious; this magazine reviews other sims flight dynamics, did they miss all our FDM's? It's a 1 page review including 4 screen shots. There are no details on flight dynamics. The author does not even mention/compare different FDMs. ..this is Micaels opinion, or the magazine review guy talking german and translated into english by Michael? It's my (of course poor) translation. The magazine is German language (actually Austria based). ..how about getting the text available? German is ok. I don't want to put a recent article online as it's a commercial magazine. But I would be willing to scan and send it to everyone interested via PM. Those interested just mail me (you're counted already). Unfortunately I lack time for translating it in full. Sincerely, Michael -- Michael Basler, Jena, Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geocities.com/pmb.geo/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear review in FlightXPress
Michael Basler wrote: Arnt, ..I'm curious; this magazine reviews other sims flight dynamics, did they miss all our FDM's? It's a 1 page review including 4 screen shots. There are no details on flight dynamics. The author does not even mention/compare different FDMs. Hmm, this makes me wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea for someone of this list to make our own review (or flyer) which would be one or two A4 (american letter) pages long with some nice pictures, showing the current state of the program, highlighting some FlightGear speciffic features, so Cutis could place it (prominent) on the website. That way reviewers probably won't be overlooking this stuff. I think an update to this paper once a year should be enough (or maybe sooner if developments proceeds faster then normal, like two months ago :-)) And to come back on the scenery; I've looked at some fairly new simulators I found in a nearby shop, but I realy don't think we're that much behind. In most cases we do have better scenery to my opinnion (which doesn't mean it wouldn't be great if someone with OpenGL knowledge could take a look at it to improve it where possible ...) Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear review in FlightXPress
On Sun, 2 Jun 2002 09:29:39 +0200, Michael Basler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Arnt, Does the magazine ever mention http://eaa.org/ type planes? Geek fliers build their planes. ;-) No. ..how about flight dynamics in the review? ..I'm curious; this magazine reviews other sims flight dynamics, did they miss all our FDM's? It's a 1 page review including 4 screen shots. There are no details on flight dynamics. The author does not even mention/compare different FDMs. ..this is Micaels opinion, or the magazine review guy talking german and translated into english by Michael? It's my (of course poor) translation. The magazine is German language (actually Austria based). ..how about getting the text available? German is ok. I don't want to put a recent article online as it's a commercial magazine. But I would be willing to scan and send it to everyone interested via PM. Those interested just mail me (you're counted already). Unfortunately I lack time for translating it in full. ..German _is_ ok, and we have http://babelfish.org/ et al. On scanning the text, output to plain text or well formed *html, using the ISO-8859-1 character set in both cases. ..to make well formed *html, get 'tidy' at http://w3.org/ and use it to clean up the commonly badly toasted output of commersial OCR etc SW. Makes a better base for translation. ;-) ..and we have clara and gocr too. ..and, we _can_ ask the magazine to put it on the web too. After all, we did fail to communicate FG's FDM and (I guess) networking features, and we'll fix those too. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear review in FlightXPress
To all those interested, I don't know if it's worth the trouble, but I made a scan of the FlightXpress article plus an ASCII (OCR) version plus an English translation by myself (given I work as a technical translator for a living I just didn't want to leave the job to a machine :-). I will ask the journal for permission, and if they grant it we can put the stuff onto the FG Website. Should they deny it, I'll send out the files to those interested via PM. Sincerely, Michael -- Michael Basler, Jena, Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geocities.com/pmb.geo/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Flightgear review in FlightXPress
Dear developers, I received the June issue of FlightXPress, a German language (actually THE German language) language journal on Flight simulation (http://www.flightxpress.de/) today. To begin with: I've been reading FlightXPress for 2 years now and judge it as a quite fair journal in general (contrary, for instance, to Computer Pilot, who seem to write good reviews for good money). (The only real shortcoming of the journal is bad final correction resulting in way too numerous misspellings.) This issue has a one page review on Flightgear written by a Marc Stoering ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) who seems to belong to the editors (not sure about that). The test was done under Suse Linux 8.0 (which btw., gets good marks.) Unfortunately the review on FG as such is negative. This are the main points: - Old-fashioned overall appearance (4 screenshots delivered, including KSFO + C172 panel), not to be compared with state-of-the art simulators - Very few functions compared to other simulators - Cockpits from yesterday - Some good 3D effects (sunset...) - Bad flight characteristics (sometimes planes react too sensitive, sometimes too sluggish), much worse than X-Plane - comparatively good frame rates - Weather + Scenery disappointing To be fair, they refer to the project as being free, open-source, multi platform and sketch the way development is done. Their summary: FlightGear is for a minority of technically advanced simmers who are prepared to go into programming only, but not for the normal simmer. Please: So far this was only a quotation. Don't beat me for it! To add my personal impression as a user: First, I thought it was a bit unfair to compare a project run by a handful of enthusiasts to a commercial package produced my several dozens of paid full-time programmers with the backing of a company like MS and their ressources. However, I recall a time when FlightGear was in some respect quite close to the then recent MSFS (and in some respect even better than it). I think this was around 4 years ago. It's a matter of fact, that MS has created a real hit with FS2002 on the one hand side while we might have lost some momentum. This said, we might perhaps be better off re-thinking a few prorities than just spitting on the guy who wrote this. Okay, now you can beat me. Regards, Michael -- Michael Basler, Jena, Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geocities.com/pmb.geo/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear review in FlightXPress
Michael Basler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: This said, we might perhaps be better off re-thinking a few prorities than just spitting on the guy who wrote this. Nice email. Let me just say that some people haven't a clue how to evaluate open source projects. Some software is developed for the shelves of Walmart, Flight Gear is not. How many paid programmers you have is not the issue. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear review in FlightXPress
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Basler) [2002.06.01 10:44]: Dear developers, I received the June issue of FlightXPress, a German language (actually THE snip/ This issue has a one page review on Flightgear written by a Marc Stoering ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) who seems to belong to the editors (not sure about that). The test was done under Suse Linux 8.0 (which btw., gets good marks.) What version of FG did he review? Unfortunately the review on FG as such is negative. This are the main points: - Old-fashioned overall appearance (4 screenshots delivered, including KSFO + C172 panel), not to be compared with state-of-the art simulators - Very few functions compared to other simulators - Cockpits from yesterday - Some good 3D effects (sunset...) - Bad flight characteristics (sometimes planes react too sensitive, sometimes too sluggish), much worse than X-Plane - comparatively good frame rates - Weather + Scenery disappointing To be fair, they refer to the project as being free, open-source, multi platform and sketch the way development is done. Their summary: FlightGear is for a minority of technically advanced simmers who are prepared to go into programming only, but not for the normal simmer. I think this is a fair characterization of FlightGear relative to the commercial PC flight sim offerings. We all know the shortcomings of the current state of FG, and we're working to remove them -- all of the points listed above are being worked on. The main difference between FG and most other flight sims is that we're cross-platform, which takes a fair amount of work that these commercial outfits don't have to deal with. I hope the review made note of that. But anyway, no press is bad press, IMO. Maybe some people will read the review and want to help out -- I'm pretty sure the commercial flight sims can't say that. ;-) -- Cameron Moore / Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the \ \ same time. I think I've forgotten this before. / ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear review in FlightXPress
Cameron, What version of FG did he review? That's (unfortunately) not explicitly stated, but from the screenshots I suppose (based on the panels and the yellow/blue glider) it's 0.7.9. Someone with Suse 8.0 might want to check what comes bundled. I think this is a fair characterization of FlightGear relative to the commercial PC flight sim offerings. We all know the shortcomings of the current state of FG, and we're working to remove them -- all of the points listed above are being worked on. :-) For me as a mostly VFR pilot, the worst field at present is scenery (which with elevated mesh did pioneer work once). Even a few airports/cities (KSFO, LAX...) with proper buildings and trees would make a huge difference. I regret this even more, as a few people started promising work into that direction and got reasonable results, thus there doesn't seem to be a no-go. The main difference between FG and most other flight sims is that we're cross-platform, which takes a fair amount of work that these commercial outfits don't have to deal with. I hope the review made note of that. Yes, this point is clearly stated. But anyway, no press is bad press, IMO. Maybe some people will read the review and want to help out -- I'm pretty sure the commercial flight sims can't say that. ;-) Unfortunately, this is only half true. The number of add-on developers is strongly dependent on the potential of a simulator. With FS2000, which was horrible performace-wise, the numer of add-ons considerably dropped over time. FS2002 has such a potential that scenery/aircraft designers etc. are legion now. Some people even have the opinion the add-ons make most of the value of it. This includes developments like Pete Dawson's FSUIPC.dll which go pretty deep into the base software. I still think it would be cool if we could find a way to build a bridge for those guys to make their work available to us (while I agree we should be careful to avoid licence conflicts). Sincerely, Michael -- Michael Basler, Jena, Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geocities.com/pmb.geo/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear review in FlightXPress
Michael Basler wrote: I received the June issue of FlightXPress, a German language (actually THE German language) language journal on Flight simulation (http://www.flightxpress.de/) today. This issue has a one page review on Flightgear written by a Marc Stoering This actually seems mostly fair to me. I mean, let's face it -- if you wanted to introduce your 10 year old niece to flying, would you choose FlightGear or FS2002? :) - Old-fashioned overall appearance (4 screenshots delivered, including KSFO + C172 panel), not to be compared with state-of-the art simulators - Very few functions compared to other simulators - Cockpits from yesterday They seem to want eye candy more than functionality, IMHO. Someone who actually flew the planes (the Cessnas and DC-3 in particular) would have come away with a far better impression of the panel. The MSFS panels are especially bad in this regard -- many of the core instruments update at something like 2-4Hz, and are useless and chunky (but attractive, always attractive). The panel is what drew me to FlightGear, and I continue to believe that our panel infrastructure (the important part, not the glitzy textures) is better than any other available to a consumer PC simulation enthusiast. They also seem to have skipped stuff like the KSJC photo scenery, which is hardly old fashioned. The criticism about lacking functionality is correct, of course. - Bad flight characteristics (sometimes planes react too sensitive, sometimes too sluggish), much worse than X-Plane Some of the models are awful. Some are very much not. There's far too much variation across our flight models (across different code bases and even between individual aircraft in the same FDM) to permit a blanket statement like this one. It's just kibitzing. If he had specific complaints about specific aircraft, though, I'd love to hear them. Most of the reported problems get fixed within days. - Weather + Scenery disappointing True. Some of our ground textures could use replacement, and it would be good to have a dynamic scenery facility that could add things like taxiway markers and trees at runtime without rebuilding tiles. The metropolitan areas could use some buildings, too. As far as weather goes, I've never seen a good weather system in any consumer simulator. FlightGear lacks a lot, but at least it doesn't duplicate all the bugs I've seen in FS2002 or Fly! :) Their summary: FlightGear is for a minority of technically advanced simmers who are prepared to go into programming only, but not for the normal simmer. That sounds about right to me. The programming bit might be better translated as development -- there are many (!) non-programming activities that match FlightGear really well. But basically, FlightGear is most appropriate for users who want to get inside the simulator and tinker, rather than running something out of a box. In my experience, *nothing* is quite right out of the box. Every simulation product has serious shortcomings. With FlightGear, I can make those go away, and *that* is why I use it. Andy -- Andrew J. RossNextBus Information Systems Senior Software Engineer Emeryville, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nextbus.com Men go crazy in conflagrations. They only get better one by one. - Sting (misquoted) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear review in FlightXPress
Some of the models are awful. Some are very much not. There's far too much variation across our flight models (across different code bases and even between individual aircraft in the same FDM) to permit a blanket statement like this one. It's just kibitzing. If he had specific complaints about specific aircraft, though, I'd love to hear them. Most of the reported problems get fixed within days. Some models are also put in CVS with full knowledge they are incomplete just so we can track their progress and store them for safety. I've lost a hard drive recently. I don't let anything just sit on my hard drive that's not backed up to CVS. I'd like to mark aircraft models with disclaimers that come up at startup stating the known incomplete or inaccurate current state of a model. Jon smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear review in FlightXPress
On Saturday 01 June 2002 11:43 am, Michael Basler wrote: Dear developers, I received the June issue of FlightXPress, a German language (actually THE German language) language journal on Flight simulation (http://www.flightxpress.de/) today. snip Unfortunately the review on FG as such is negative. This are the main points: - Old-fashioned overall appearance (4 screenshots delivered, including KSFO + C172 panel), not to be compared with state-of-the art simulators - Very few functions compared to other simulators Or perhaps just not as easily accessable? - Cockpits from yesterday - Some good 3D effects (sunset...) - Bad flight characteristics (sometimes planes react too sensitive, sometimes too sluggish), much worse than X-Plane - comparatively good frame rates - Weather + Scenery disappointing Considering SuSE FGFS blurb says you can fly through a thunderstorm and see lightning and other weather effects thats not a surprise. To be fair, they refer to the project as being free, open-source, multi platform and sketch the way development is done. Their summary: FlightGear is for a minority of technically advanced simmers who are prepared to go into programming only, but not for the normal simmer. Please: So far this was only a quotation. Don't beat me for it! To add my personal impression as a user: First, I thought it was a bit unfair to compare a project run by a handful of enthusiasts to a commercial package produced my several dozens of paid full-time programmers with the backing of a company like MS and their ressources. However, I recall a time when FlightGear was in some respect quite close to the then recent MSFS (and in some respect even better than it). I think this was around 4 years ago. It's a matter of fact, that MS has created a real hit with FS2002 on the one hand side while we might have lost some momentum. This said, we might perhaps be better off re-thinking a few prorities than just spitting on the guy who wrote this. Okay, now you can beat me. Regards, Michael ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear review in FlightXPress
On Sat, 01 Jun 2002 17:23:02 -0400, John Check [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Saturday 01 June 2002 11:43 am, Michael Basler wrote: Dear developers, I received the June issue of FlightXPress, a German language (actually THE German language) language journal on Flight simulation (http://www.flightxpress.de/) ..snip To be fair, they refer to the project as being free, open-source, multi platform and sketch the way development is done. Their summary: FlightGear is for a minority of technically advanced simmers who are prepared to go into programming only, but not for the normal simmer. ..a geek sim. Ok. Does the magazine ever mention http://eaa.org/ type planes? Geek fliers build their planes. ;-) ..how about flight dynamics in the review? Please: So far this was only a quotation. Don't beat me for it! To add my personal impression as a user: First, I thought it was a ..this is Micaels opinion, or the magazine review guy talking german and translated into english by Michael? bit unfair to compare a project run by a handful of enthusiasts to a commercial package produced my several dozens of paid full-time programmers with the backing of a company like MS and their ressources. However, I recall a time when FlightGear was in some respect quite close to the then recent MSFS(and in some respect even better than it). I think this was around 4 years ago. It's a matter of fact, that MS has created a real hit with FS2002 on the one hand side while we might have lost some momentum. This said, we might perhaps be better off re-thinking a few prorities than just spitting on the guy who wrote this. ..I'm curious; this magazine reviews other sims flight dynamics, did they miss all our FDM's? Okay, now you can beat me. ..how about getting the text available? German is ok. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
