On mardi 09 décembre 2008, Heiko Schulz wrote: > Hi, > > > Hi Everybody, > > > > Just to follow up to my previous mail regarding the > > prereleases. I hope to > > roll out another release candidate tomorrow evening (CET). > > As for the aircraft > > selection, I would like to make the following changes: > > > > - Remove Concorde and replace by the following two > > aircraft: 1) On of the > > following light aircraft, as suggested by James Sleeman: > > Lionceau, , > > Skyranger, or, J, and 2) The Piper Seneca. > > > > Note that I still intend to keep the 777-200, simply > > because it's still the > > best in it's category, that is currently in CVS. Syd, I > > hope I can convince > > you. If you really object, then by all means tell me. I do > > count your vote > > strongly. However, unless somebody can commit the updated > > 787, there currently > > isn't much competition. > > > > Comments are still welcome of course. > > > > Cheers, > > Durk > > Some additional thoughts from me: > > The base package is very often used for reviews. I really like to read > them, even they are old, but this gives a nice overview what people knows > about our project and what they wish. > > The most people are not aware of that we develope in our spare time, > between job, family and other hobbies. They only see that there is a nice > and free (cost free!) simulator but also notice the bugs. > > These reviews are advertisement for our project and the better those > reviews are, the more people will get interested on FGFS and join the > project. > > So we should be carefully what we select for the base package. We do know, > that a good looking aircraft doesn't mean that it is developed far. The 777 > is really good looking but there are a lot of glitches. The autopilot is > not working correct, the displays are buggy... I do know, That Syd is > working on that - but what will a new user think of it? He will just see an > unfinished aircraft which he don't can use like he expect. > > The concorde is really nice, but too big and too complex, though it would > be nice for the base package and reviews. But from the same author (the > ghost author...:-)) there is a ncie 747-200 with 3d-panel and a pretty good > (easy) working autopilot- and a very good jsbsim-config! > > Why not add this instea Ifnot, we should at least fix some bugs on the 777 > if we want to make a good impression! > > Just my thoughts > > Cheers > HHS > Is it only philosophy, from me ? Am i alone to think like that ? Or, is there here, now, more "gamer" and less "serious" persons. ?
I never took FG being easy to Use and the Aircraft easy to Fly. That is because of these characteristics, that i quickly abandonned any others Flight simulators. Sure the others where not free, however, at that time, when i took my decision, the "money" was not the main argument. Yes we can change the heading, looking for more popular users ( i should say more consumers) , and give them some, never Achieved Aircraft and Toys. If that is the new target, i will definitively leave FlightGear. Why the Concorde, Bo105, C172p are not taken being the basement of FlightGear, yes in the future (a future day) they could be replaced by some others Models more achieved (if it is possible). To me that day is not today. I vote for keeping the Concorde, like we keep the Bo105 and the c172p Greeting -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
