On Monday, June 13, 2011 05:16:59 AM Gijs de Rooy wrote:
> Hi all,
snip
> I think the alpha-range is rather big, compared to the others. There is an
> awfull lot of difference between a total=0 aircraft and a total=8 (eg.
> Model=3, FDM=3, Cockpit=0, Systems=2). I don't care if my vehicles end up
>
On Monday, June 13, 2011 06:12:04 AM Gijs de Rooy wrote:
> > Vivian wrote:
> >
> > Just how many systems are there – this must be a 4 as well?
> > So that would become 3 + 3 + 4 + 4 = 14 = early production. Good enough
> > for me J
>
> My 2nd point wasn't about the Jetman ;)
>
> But yeah, I do t
Gijs wrote:
> Vivian wrote:
>
> Just how many systems are there - this must be a 4 as well?
> So that would become 3 + 3 + 4 + 4 = 14 = early production. Good enough
for me :-)
My 2nd point wasn't about the Jetman ;)
But yeah, I do think the Cockpit might be a 4 rather than a 5 then. Will
wai
> Vivian wrote:
>
> Just how many systems are there – this must be a 4 as well?
> So that would become 3 + 3 + 4 + 4 = 14 = early production. Good enough for
> me J
My 2nd point wasn't about the Jetman ;)
But yeah, I do think the Cockpit might be a 4 rather than a 5 then. Will wait
for some m
Gijs,
Some comments inline.
Vivian
-Original Message-
From: Gijs de Rooy [mailto:gijsr...@hotmail.com]
Sent: 13 June 2011 13:17
To: FlightGear Development list
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Rating System Redux
Hi all,
just pushed ratings for my vehicles to Git (wow
Hi all,
just pushed ratings for my vehicles to Git (wow, didn't know I had that many
(uninished) vehicles!
This year I didn't start new aircraft IIRC, I'm now finishing up my existing
ones instead, as I should
have done in the past years...). Anyway, I came across some issues with the
rating
On Friday, June 03, 2011 11:45:26 AM Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:56 PM, ThorstenB wrote:
> > Hi Stuart and all,
> >
> > > http://wiki.flightgear.org/Formalizing_Aircraft_Status
> >
> > We have some (too few!) aircraft providing documentation / tutorials,
> > i.e. how to sta
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:56 PM, ThorstenB wrote:
> Hi Stuart and all,
>
> > http://wiki.flightgear.org/Formalizing_Aircraft_Status
>
> We have some (too few!) aircraft providing documentation / tutorials,
> i.e. how to start, how to use instruments... I like extremely
> detailed/realistic aircraft
Hi Stuart and all,
> http://wiki.flightgear.org/Formalizing_Aircraft_Status
We have some (too few!) aircraft providing documentation / tutorials,
i.e. how to start, how to use instruments... I like extremely
detailed/realistic aircraft, and I'm not asking everyone to provide
cheating autostar
Adding to Hal's comments:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Hal V. Engel wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 03:02:09 PM Vivian Meazza wrote:
>> I also disagree with Stuart that such advanced
>> features are nice-to-haves and add little to the simulation - why the hell
>> are we including them then? D
On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 10:26:18 PM Robert wrote:
> I absolutely agree with Vivian. The users should know about planes that
> need much resources (CPU, RAM, VRAM).
> This value should not influence the total score.
I think how much compute power is needed and how difficult a model is to
use/fly
On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 03:02:09 PM Vivian Meazza wrote:
> Hal,
>
> I can't follow your logic - because there are some aircraft that need a lot
> of work, the system shouldn't recognize "advanced features" in other
> aircraft that do have them?
I should have been clearer - Sorry. What I was tr
I absolutely agree with Vivian. The users should know about planes that need
much resources (CPU, RAM, VRAM).
This value should not influence the total score.
Maybe using the total score is not a good idea at all, because some users
prefer the "eye candy" and don't worry about frame rate too much,
Original Message-
From: Hal V. Engel [mailto:hven...@gmail.com]
Sent: 30 May 2011 23:45
To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Rating System Redux (was Re:Flightgear-devel
Digest, Vol 61, Issue 12)
On Monday, May 30, 2011 12:47:41 PM Stuart Buchanan wrote:
>
On Monday, May 30, 2011 12:47:41 PM Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> >> I don't have a good answer for the other items. Some are nice-to-haves
> >> that enrich
> >> the simulation experience but don't impact simulation of flight
> >> itself, but others
> >> (such as a co-pilot) are more important for multi
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> Stuart
>
>>
>> > Thanks for addressing the points that were hammered out over on the IRC
>> > channel. I think the modified system could work. Just a few points
>> remain:
>> >
>> > There is no penalty for including systems, such as an AP, whe
On Thursday, May 26, 2011 06:31:13 AM Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Vivian Meazz awrote:
> > Thanks for addressing the points that were hammered out over on the IRC
> > channel. I think the modified system could work. Just a few points
> > remain:
> >
> > There is no pe
Stuart
>
> > Thanks for addressing the points that were hammered out over on the IRC
> > channel. I think the modified system could work. Just a few points
> remain:
> >
> > There is no penalty for including systems, such as an AP, where none
> existed
> > on the original.
>
> There's not an exp
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Vivian Meazz awrote:
> Thanks for addressing the points that were hammered out over on the IRC
> channel. I think the modified system could work. Just a few points remain:
>
> There is no penalty for including systems, such as an AP, where none existed
> on the orig
19 matches
Mail list logo
