-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: > > While development over the past few years might give the preception that > Flightgear is a game, Flightgear is actually meant to be a serious flight > simulator. Things that go boom are cool in games, but they are also useless; > more so in a simulator.
Regardless of any ethical or directional questions, getting combat simulation to work decently, would also bring improvements for "serious" flight simulation: * better and more precise multi player * collission detection, which could make formation flight even more exciting and realistic (you won't dare to come too close to your wing man if you can really collide) * a damage model with which one could train for example one-wing flight like in the video posted here Apart from that, the code would surely benefit from adding a different usage pattern. This usually leads to cleaner code and better abstraction. And of course if "the document" got implemented as a side effect of combat simulation, the rest would benefit as well. So the question would be: are these advantages (and a larger user base) worth the increased perception of FlightGear being a game? Nine -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGRZjZ1QuEJQQMVrgRAhbUAJ9Po9Bew/xJ5ijoGDkJ37LhSbFqIACeMqK2 2VRSSJ2bABwIUcuLdLuQ7JI= =GRKh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
