Lee Elliott wrote > 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. >
I'm only hours away from completing the Seahawk with a 3d panel - it would be finished right now, but I've just broken it!!! Regards Vivian M. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
