RE: [Flightgear-devel] Possible new thinking for 2D/3D cockpitinstruments
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 11:52, Norman Vine wrote: > I agree that it would be nice to have all instruments etc have interactive > interfaces ala a mouse click, if that is at all realistic, but this does not > necessarily > mean that the dialog boxes should go. > [Flightgear has] a much broader vision then a first person experience of > flight !! > > So if you don't want to use the menu or dialog box interface don't > and they won't spoil your experience :-) > Agreed, but if we've got a better scheme, why keep the dialog boxes? Every disjoint aspect to the GUI is just another thing waiting to go wrong, as with the Cessna autopilot where the dialog box is invisibly disconnected from the real autopilot. Now, maybe if the autopilot dialog box was part of the "autopilot object" so to speak, then such a mistake couldn't happen, and I'd retract my complaint on those grounds at least. It would be neat if the instruments were objects in that way (I suspect they're not currently). If your airplane uses one, its instantiation code would to hook any dialog box interface that it may have into the list of things on a given menu, to start feeding polygons and textures reflecting its state to the OpenGL engine. Later, if that object sees a double-click on itself, it pops open a draggable, scalable window containing a photorealistic image of its front panel, maybe allowing clicks on that window to set its parameters. Steve. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Possible new thinking for 2D/3D cockpitinstruments
Steve Hosgood writes: > > Makes me wonder whether there's an excuse for some new thinking on the > subject of UI design, regardless of whether a cockpit is 3D or 2D. > Here's what I propose - please be kind with your comments, I'm not > trying to dictate terms or tread on anyone's toes: > > Flightgear (and any other flight sim) is trying to reproduce the > experience of flying, both in terms of the flight dynamics and (to a > limited extent) "the whole experience". > > As such, many of the instruments in the virtual cockpit can be > configured with mouse-clicks on the instruments themselves. Some can > also be configured through dialog boxes. > > If FG wants to try and model the "flight experience", these alternative > dialog-box UIs must go. There are no pull-down menus on a real plane, > and no dialog-boxes. Providing them therefore breaks the "flight > experience". Steve I agree that it would be nice to have all instruments etc have interactive interfaces ala a mouse click, if that is at all realistic, but this does not necessarily mean that the dialog boxes should go. Please note the following from http://www.flightgear.org/introduction.html """The goal of the FlightGear project is to create a sophisticated flight simulator framework for use in research or academic environments, for the development and pursuit of other interesting flight simulation ideas, and as an end-user application. We are developing a sophisticated, open simulation framework that can be expanded and improved upon by anyone interested in contributing."" Is a much broader vision then a first person experience of flight !! So if you don't want to use the menu or dialog box interface don't and they won't spoil your experience :-) Cheers Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
