On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Thorsten R. wrote:
> Stuart wrote:
>
>> In the great tradition of re-inventing the wheek, I'd propose 4 criteria:
>> - FDM
>> - Systems
>> - Cockpit
>> - External Model.
>
> It sounds very neat and if a large fraction of aircraft ends up rated that
> way, then I'll
> Nevertheless, I am not persuaded. Your rating is based on: "Four legs
> good, two legs bad!". While that may be generally true, it will throw up
> many anomalies, and the problem is you neither know which these are,
> nor how many, because you haven't and can't properly test your hypothesis.
Fir
Thorsten
> -Original Message-
> From:.i.r...@jyu.fi [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi]
> Sent: 02 December 2010 10:58
> To: vivian.mea...@lineone.net; FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
>
> > My point is
Le jeudi 02 décembre 2010 09:45:04, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi a écrit :
> Henri wrote:
> > Please don't fall in the MSFS policy, when the eye candy is the
main
> > approach.
>
> I don't see 'accuracy' and 'visual detail' as mutually exclusive -
you can
> have both. I for once am interested in 'real
> My point is your rating was based on an assumption that was totally
> incorrect: that the developer had made a reasonable effort to put the
> right
> gauges and levers in the right place. Do you make a similar assumption
> about
> the FDM? That it is approximately right? Is there much value in su
Thorsten
... snip ...
> Vivian wrote:
>
> > If I might interject here, I would draw your attention to the KC135.
>
> I looked it up and it got a 3 - seems to be reasonable, even given your
> description (it shouldn't get zero because it actually flies - it
> shouldn't get 1 because it has usuab
Henri wrote:
> Please don't fall in the MSFS policy, when the eye candy is the main
> approach.
I don't see 'accuracy' and 'visual detail' as mutually exclusive - you can
have both. I for once am interested in 'realism' in a simulator. An
important part is that the aircraft behaves like an aircr
> Running through the same exercise for the p51d-jsbsim:
>
> FDM: 5
> Systems: 4 (still needs some electrical systems stuff)
> Model: 3 (missing cooling door animation, liveries and Ambient
> Occlusion
> effect)
> Cockpit: 3 (what is there is a 4 but it is missing a few things IE. not
> complete)
On 2 Dec 2010, at 00:18, Hal V. Engel wrote:
> Total is 15 average is 3.75. For a developer this is very quick to do as it
> took me all of perhaps 2 minutes. In addition this has very few things that
> are at all subjective. I like it. It is perhaps a little simplistic in some
> ways but
I don't want to flog a dead horse, but you deserve answers to your questions.
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Thorsten wrote:
>> One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of the
>> maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to
>> your criteria :)
>
>
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, dave perry wrote:
>>
>>
> Actually, fixed gear can have animations. The C172 gear flexes with
> gear compression. The wheels spin (when on the ground) and the nose
I *knew* this was going to come up. *laughs*
> gear links are animated. There are a number of fixed gear aircr
On 12/01/2010 08:14 AM, Gene Buckle wrote:
> I like the work that Thorsten has done with the rating system, but you
> guys are getting all tangled up in the details.
>
> Why not build a pretty objective score card and then rate the aircraft on
> that?
>
> For example, you can have a list like this:
I'm with Jari here. Let's not get all bent out of shape and make this way
more complicated than it was intended. Sure, someone could design the
mother of all ratings systems and build an online web based system to track
aircraft and ratings and sort and dice and do it all -- nothing wrong with
th
On 2010-12-01 15.18, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> The point is that your rating system can't possibly pick this up. It is a
> subjective opinion of the "attractiveness" of a cockpit. Or, as I said, a
> beauty contest. This does have some value, and we certainly gain from
> drawing attention to those mode
I like the work that Thorsten has done with the rating system, but you
guys are getting all tangled up in the details.
Why not build a pretty objective score card and then rate the aircraft on
that?
For example, you can have a list like this:
Exterior
---
Animated Control Surfaces
Anim
Martin wrote
> thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
>
> >> One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of
> the
> >> maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to
> >> your criteria :)
> >
> > Compared with, say, the A-10, the F-14b or the Tu-154b (which
Thorsten wrote
> -Original Message-
> From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi]
> Sent: 01 December 2010 11:43
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
>
> > So, if you claim tha
thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
>> One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of the
>> maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to
>> your criteria :)
>
> Compared with, say, the A-10, the F-14b or the Tu-154b (which is not in
> the GIT repository)
Le mercredi 01 décembre 2010 14:06:11, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi a écrit :
> > One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of the
> > maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to
> > your criteria :)
>
> Compared with, say, the A-10, the F-14b or the Tu-
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 15:06 +0200, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
> > One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of the
> > maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to
> > your criteria :)
>
> Compared with, say, the A-10, the F-14b or the Tu-154b (w
> One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of the
> maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to
> your criteria :)
Compared with, say, the A-10, the F-14b or the Tu-154b (which is not in
the GIT repository) - how would you rate the c172p cockpit?
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Martin Spott wrote:
>> So, if you claim that your rating is _not_ a beauty contest, then I'd
>> ask you: After taking the above mentioned thoughts into account, what's
>> left as a criteria for your rating ?
>
> Martin, I see no need to repeat myself over and over.
> So, if you claim that your rating is _not_ a beauty contest, then I'd
> ask you: After taking the above mentioned thoughts into account, what's
> left as a criteria for your rating ?
Martin, I see no need to repeat myself over and over. Please read the
explanations I have given so far, if you fe
thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
> "Vivian Meazza" wrote:
>> I'm afraid that your grading is no more than a beauty contest. It does
>> matter "if the gauges are all in the right place or if the cockpit is
>> complete down to the last detail". Under your grading a cockpit could be
>> a complete figmen
> I'm afraid that your grading is no more than a beauty contest. It does
> matter "if the gauges are all in the right place or if the cockpit is
> complete down to the last detail". Under your grading a cockpit could be
> a complete figment of the imagination, but by looking pretty or having a
> wo
> -Original Message-
> From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi]
> Sent: 01 December 2010 08:58
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
>
> ... snip ...
>
> > Hmm - inte
Martin wrote:
> I think the risk of doing harm by "rating" aircraft and their cockpits
> after just a quick test is rather high compared to the potential
> benefit - especially when you're too unfamiliar with some of the
> respective real-life references. To put in into different words: By
> assig
I think the list is a good start , but as already mentioned , I'm my
own worst critic.
Rating my own work , I'd say decent 3d model , working FDM's but
plenty of room for improvement ,
and a "FAIL" for autopilot configuration .
Hopefully I can get back to work on them once life stabilizes here ,
an
Curtis Olson wrote:
> Any time someone criticizes my work I just watch a funny cat video like this
> one and that really helps me feel better ...
Aaaah, good recipe, will try next time ;-)
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
---
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
> James Turner wrote:
>
> > A thick-skin is a requirement for [...]
>
> everyone who's seriously trying to survive in the FlightGear
> developer's shark tank ;-)
>
Any time someone criticizes my work I just watch a funny cat video like t
James Turner wrote:
> A thick-skin is a requirement for [...]
everyone who's seriously trying to survive in the FlightGear
developer's shark tank ;-)
> [...], but I'd hate to do
> anything which means people keep aircraft 'secret' until they are
> 'finished' - we already know that leads t
Thorsten wrote
> -Original Message-
> From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi]
> Sent: 30 November 2010 10:49
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft model/cockpit rating
>
>
> I'd like to let every
On 30 Nov 2010, at 18:16, Gijs de Rooy wrote:
> Wouldn't it be easier to create "redirect" in the wiki from (for example)
> http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/f-14b to
> http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat
> This would only require you to add a link with
> http://wiki.f
> Curt wrote:
>
> Here's a random idea: if we put the wiki link for each aircraft in the
> corresponding -set.xml
> file we could automatically link to it from the aircraft download page ...
Wouldn't it be easier to create "redirect" in the wiki from (for example)
http://wiki.flightgear.org/i
Cool, I wasn't aware of the wiki voting
Here's a random idea: if we put the wiki link for each aircraft in the
corresponding -set.xml file we could automatically link to it from
the aircraft download page ...
Curt.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Gijs de Rooy wrote:
> I do like Thorste
On 30 Nov 2010, at 17:30, Gijs de Rooy wrote:
> Bring us back to an old discussion. This was implemented in the wiki, but
> without dozens of
> people voting per-aircraft it isn't very usefull... (most votings are just
> the single author's 5 stars
> I guess :P)
I voted! And I didn't make a
I do like Thorsten's list, especially since he attached images of each single
cockpit.
This makes it clear at what time of development he checked the aircraft.
Anyway, it is still a delicate subject and I don't think we'll ever find a
rating system that
works for all...
> Curt wrote:
>
> 1. I
On 30 Nov 2010, at 17:04, Tim Moore wrote:
> If I were you, I'd refrain from posting ratings as 'delicate' as this
> one.
>
> I for one really enjoyed the list and plan to check out some of the more
> highly rated ones with which I'm not familiar. I can't believe that the
> ratings will come a
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Tim Moore wrote:
> I for one really enjoyed the list and plan to check out some of the more
> highly rated ones with which I'm not familiar. I can't believe that the
> ratings will come as a surprise to any aircraft developer, and I hope that
> their egos aren't
Tim Moore wrote:
> I for one really enjoyed the list and plan to check out some of the more
> highly rated ones with which I'm not familiar. I can't believe that the
> ratings will come as a surprise to any aircraft developer, and I hope that
> their egos aren't so fragile as to be discouraged by
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
> thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
>
> > What do the numbers mean?
> > =
> >
> > Roughly, anything below 5 means that it isn't really finished and that I
> > think they should be alpha status. 7 and 8 are really nice cockpit
thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
> What do the numbers mean?
> =
>
> Roughly, anything below 5 means that it isn't really finished and that I
> think they should be alpha status. 7 and 8 are really nice cockpits, and 9
> an 10 usually create a spontaneous 'wow!'.
I think th
I'd like to let everyone know that I just finished a project assigning
each aircraft model/cockpit a number between 0 and 10 indicating the
visual level of quality of the cockpit. The results can be found in the
forum here:
http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10080
Why did I do
43 matches
Mail list logo
