Changing subject, getting off the original topic a lot...
gerard robin wrote:
> Your definition => when if takes 5 hours that is easy to fly.
>
You misunderstand me I think, I probably said it badly and apologise for
that.
You said in your email:
"The best models which have the higher quality must be presented
first ( and they won't never be "easy to fly")."
Ignoring the double negative, effectively this means you seem to say
that if an aircraft is "easy to fly" it is not a good (best) model.
There is a heck of a lot involved in flying a Concorde, while in a (say)
172 you can turn the key, push the throttle, keep it pointed roughly
down the runway, and you are well on the way to getting the hang of it
(ignoring the real world concerns which do not affect the new sim pilot,
such as mortality, reset is free and infinite).
This does not mean that the 172 model is bad or even "not best" (it has
been discussed recently the "goodness" of this model, and you yourself
classed it with the Concorde), just that the aircraft is inherently, at
it's most basic level, "easy to fly".
NB: By model I refer to the model in it's entirety, including visual,
interactive, FDM, and aural.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
