On Wednesday 17 March 2004 16:37, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > Curtis L. Olson wrote: > > 1. I'm growing less enthused with our aircraft alias naming system. I > > don't mind that we have the capability, but it becomes annoying to > > have 8 names for the same aircraft, even 2 names for the same aircraft. > > As I understand it, aliases are primarily a convenience for the command > line typer folks, but they severerly clutter the aircraft browser in the > fgrun launcher. I propose that the fgrun launcher simply ignores all > the alias entries and only presents the primary entries. Then we can > discuss changing the alias system later (if we decide to.) I don't > think we should eliminate the ability to set up aircraft aliases, but > down the road we may want to do some reorganization. The J3 cub has at > least five entries for one single aircraft. Aliases make more sense if > have multiple versions of a 747 for instance and we want to select which > version you get when you request a 747. Flipping that around and giving > 5 different names to a single aircraft when we only have one of them > seems a little out of control. > > > 2. We have a *lot* of aircraft in the base package. Some of these are > > really nice, some of these are not even close to basic functionality. > > Most are probalby best considered "works in progress." (Now this is > > perfectly fine, and is what CVS is for.) However, for the next > > release I would like to just include a subset of the available > > aircraft, picking and choosing the best or most interesting ones. > > Based on the discussion of this thread, here is the current list I have > assembled for inclusion, notice that I err on the side of inclusion > rather than exclusion which I think is fine, especially if we unclutter > the fgrun aircraft browser. > > Large Commercial Transports > =========================== > Boeing 737 > Boeing 747 > Airbus A320 > AN-225 > > Small Civilian Aircraft > ======================= > Piper J3 Cub > Cessna 172 > Cessna 182 > Cessna 310 > Piper pa28-161 > > Military Fighters/Trainers > ========================== > P-51 > Hawker Hunter > A4 Skyhawk > J22 > F-16 > Seahawk > TSR-2 > YF-23 > T-38 > Sopwith Camel > T-6A Texan II > North American OV-10A Bronco > > Large Military > ============== > B-52 > > Experimental/Research > ===================== > Ornithopter > UFO > X-15 > > Helicopters > ================ > Eurocopter Bo105 > > Historic Aircraft > ================= > 1903 Wright Flyer > Comper Swift > DC-3 > > Sail Planes > =========== > Schweizer 2-33 > > Can anyone justify including additional aircraft in this list? > > Thanks, > > Curt.
I'd be inclined to hold off including the Sea Hawk, TSR-2 and B-52, for the time being at least. The Sea Hawk is currently getting a proper panel, speed-brakes and some missing gear doors, courtesy of Vivian M. The TSR-2 isn't really mainstream and I doubt it would have much relevance to anyone who wasn't already interested in it. It really needs a look-ahead TF function to be flown properly too. Finally, the B-52 3D model is pretty crude and badly needs re-building - I'm not sure it'd be a good advert for FG in it's current state. The lack of anything like a proper panel for the AN225 isn't very good either and unless it was clearly marked as a development/wip a/c it could result in more criticism of FG than compliments. The same applies to the YF-23 although here I could probably get away with just making something up as it was a prototype. However, I think both the prototypes are now in museums in the U.S, so if anyone can get some cockpit shots... I've also got fairly effective auto take-off and landing functions for the YF-23 now, controlled by some awful Nasal hackery - I'll send you an update a little later this evening. LeeE _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
