Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Curtis Olson wrote: > > > This is all very true, especially in the open source world. However, > > speaking as the flightgear project maintainer, I get the sense that we > > are starting to collect a number of half finished (or just barely > > started) aircraft that really aren't coherent or flyable yet. I > > realize building aircraft for FlightGear is a ***lot*** of work, and I > > don't want to knock the contributions that everyone has made, they are > > very welcome. But the flip side is that a new user who is trying > > flightgear for the very first time might have to go through several > > aircraft before they find one that flies plausibly through all the > > normal flight regimes. > > Agreed. But that's really a FlightGear issue. > > What I've been thinking of is setting up a flag somehow that could be > checked to indicate which aircraft probably shouldn't be included in the > official base package archive. >
Maybe we could just name the xml wrappers in Aircraft with the words alpha or beta (something shorter than "experimental" or "underdevelopement"). For example: b707-alpha-jsbsim.xml Would indicate that the model for the boeing 707 is an unfinished JSBsim model. Another alternative would be to bring up a PUI menu on loading that gives a list of working models when --aircraft isn't specified. I reallize switching FDM's once running is a challenge, but how hard would it be to bring up a menu immediately before the splash screen? Best, Jim _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
