--- AJ MacLeod wrote:
> I agree that we need a better indication of "state of completion" for the
> models on the downloads page, but as far as I can see it will have to be a
> very basic overview. I'm not a fan of simplistic "star" ratings, but if the
> stars are for degree of completion and every star has a well-defined meaning,
> the idea might well have some merit (merely as a rough indication of what to
> expect).
Quite a few of the aircraft currently use the following scale:
- alpha
- beta
- early-production
- production
which I think is fairly easy to understand for users, and fit in with the basic
software model of improvement over time. However, as others have pointed out, we
need a better definition for what each of these mean.
As it has worked quite well in the past for collating input, I suggest we set up
a wiki page to get a feel for what people consider acceptable for each of the
definitions. I'll set it up when I get the chance, unless someone else does so
before me.
To add to AJs point that we shouldn't be using this to critique model quality
(as
opposed to completeness of the aircraft), I'd suggest that a fully 3-D cockpit
should not be a requirement for a "production" aircraft.
I think that a 2.5D cockpit (i.e. a 2D panel pasted onto a surface) is
acceptable
for a production aircraft, and I'm not just saying that because I maintain some
aircraft that use this feature ;)
-Stuart
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
