On Friday 07 December 2007 14:40:34 gerard robin wrote:
Making the 3D model shape is the easiest (5% of the work, more or less 24
hours of work, but very complicated shape)
There is a lot of stuff to do:
=the cockpit must completed (versus the A10, Alexy has spent so many time
to do it)
On ven 7 décembre 2007, Hans Fugal wrote:
The aircraft discussion has been interesting. One stumbling block I've
come across when deciding which aircraft to download before is the
quality guessing game. The web site lists the author's assessment, but
I've found that to be less useful than it
Nice idea!
Why not add a system like: 5 stars for a very complete
aircraft like the Senecca II or one for the not so
goog like the fokker 70/100?
So everyone can see, where is potential to develop?!
Regards
HHS
--- Hans Fugal [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
The aircraft discussion has been
The aircraft discussion has been interesting. One stumbling block I've
come across when deciding which aircraft to download before is the
quality guessing game. The web site lists the author's assessment, but
I've found that to be less useful than it could be, because some
authors say alpha when
Nice idea! Why not add a system like: 5 stars for a very complete
aircraft like the Senecca II or one for the not so goog like the fokker
70/100? So everyone can see, where is potential to develop?! Regards
HHS --- Hans Fugal [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
We could give a star for every
Hi,
--- gerard robin [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
On ven 7 décembre 2007, Heiko Schulz wrote:
Yes we must not talk about artistic competences
(here the msfs models are
better :( ), only to answer the question: does
the
model simulate the real
one ?which degree of simulation
--- AJ MacLeod wrote:
I agree that we need a better indication of state of completion for the
models on the downloads page, but as far as I can see it will have to be a
very basic overview. I'm not a fan of simplistic star ratings, but if the
stars are for degree of completion and every
On ven 7 décembre 2007, Heiko Schulz wrote:
Yes we must not talk about artistic competences
(here the msfs models are
better :( ), only to answer the question: does the
model simulate the real
one ?which degree of simulation ?
Right I think- eye candies are only one small part
On ven 7 décembre 2007, AJ MacLeod wrote:
On Friday 07 December 2007 14:40:34 gerard robin wrote:
Making the 3D model shape is the easiest (5% of the work, more or less
24 hours of work, but very complicated shape)
There is a lot of stuff to do:
=the cockpit must completed (versus the
Yes we must not talk about artistic competences
(here the msfs models are
better :( ), only to answer the question: does the
model simulate the real
one ?which degree of simulation ?
Right I think- eye candies are only one small part of
being realistic, but if we want to be
-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
Nice idea!
Why not add a system like: 5 stars for a very complete
aircraft like the Senecca II or one for the not so
goog like the fokker 70/100?
So everyone can see, where is potential to develop?!
Regards
HHS
--- Hans Fugal [EMAIL PROTECTED
Gerard robin wrote
Sent: 07 December 2007 15:44
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
On ven 7 décembre 2007, Heiko Schulz wrote:
Yes we must not talk about artistic competences
(here the msfs models are
better
On ven 7 décembre 2007, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Gerard robin wrote
Sent: 07 December 2007 15:44
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
On ven 7 décembre 2007, Heiko Schulz wrote:
Yes we must not talk about artistic
Am Freitag 07 Dezember 2007 schrieb LeeE:
...[end user rating scheme is bad idea]...
I propose that we identify the different areas of development i.e. 3d
model, FDM, Cockpit, flight control systems etc. and then just state
the level of development for each of those areas.
While this is
On Dec 7, 2007 2:43 PM, LeeE wrote:
I'm not sure that a rating scheme, where the ratings are given by end
users, is a good idea.
I'm not sure the value of debating and discussing and designing a system
that probably no one will step forward to build. But that said, if you
allow multiple
On Friday 07 December 2007 20:25, Curtis Olson wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007 2:20 PM, AnMaster wrote:
Just an idea:
A rating system for users. (Please rate this aircraft after you
tried it for a
bit!) However we can't know how well the users know how it
should be. Maybe we
should ask them
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote:
Hi there,
On Dec 8, 2007, at 5:01 AM, SydSandy wrote:
Quite a few of the aircraft currently use the following scale:
- alpha
- beta
- early-production
- production
(snip)
I agree with most of the discussion ,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SydSandy wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:39:53 + (GMT)
Stuart Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- AJ MacLeod wrote:
I agree that we need a better indication of state of completion for the
models on the downloads page, but as far as I can
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:39:53 + (GMT)
Stuart Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- AJ MacLeod wrote:
I agree that we need a better indication of state of completion for the
models on the downloads page, but as far as I can see it will have to be a
very basic overview. I'm not a fan of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Curtis Olson wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007 2:20 PM, AnMaster wrote:
Just an idea:
A rating system for users. (Please rate this aircraft after you tried it
for a
bit!) However we can't know how well the users know how it should be.
Maybe we
should
On Dec 7, 2007 2:20 PM, AnMaster wrote:
Just an idea:
A rating system for users. (Please rate this aircraft after you tried it
for a
bit!) However we can't know how well the users know how it should be.
Maybe we
should ask them if they are pilots/if the flew that aircraft in reality.
21 matches
Mail list logo
