Am Mittwoch, den 10.12.2008, 23:46 +0100 schrieb gerard robin: > On mercredi 10 décembre 2008, Durk Talsma wrote: > > Hi Gerard, > > > > On Wednesday 10 December 2008 13:08:57 gerard robin wrote: > > > 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'm puzzled... > > > > As far as I can tell there has never been any question regaring our > > striving for realism. Personally, I don't see how the quest for a selection > > of our most advanced aircraft would be indicative of moving FlightGear > > toward a more game oriented audience. If you think it does, then please > > explain how. > > > > What is at stake here is that we do want to achieve a cross section of > > aircraft that are a good representation of FlightGear's capabilities and at > > the same time leave a positive impression. This includes a number of > > beginner level aircraft, along with a number of more advanced types. > > Obviously, the ones that are easy in FlightGear should also be easy in real > > life. Within these confinements, I don't think we ever sacrificed realism. > > You might remember that last year, at the very last minute, we decided not > > to include the Bleriot aircraft, due to it's unrealistic FDM, and replaced > > it with a very hard to fly Sopwith Camel. > > > > Suppose what would happen if we were to include aircraft that are hard to > > fly. New users would get frustrated by FlightGear, conclude that the > > program "sucks", and don't give it a second chance. However, with a few > > aircraft in the mix that are easy to fly, one would get a positive > > experience and give it a second try. Ultimately, these people may become > > permanent users, and even contributers. . > > > > > > Cheers, > > Durk > > > > Hello, Durk, > > I don't understand , that regression, the Concorde is not new. > > Yes > it it is regression since now words like "hard to fly" are used, which sound > > to me like a "criticism" of FlightGear. > These models were "hard to fly" in the past time. That is the characteristic > of the quality of the best models. > It should be used as a compliment and pushed, like in was before. > compliment to the modeler who spend time to give to his models the > most > realistic quality. > compliment to the developers of the FDMs which are more and more > accurate. > > With the most realistic quality a model is never easy to fly, even the most > simple aircraft, (if the FDM and cockpit are realistic). > Modern General Aviation Aircraft like the C172 are designed to be easy to fly. Some even take action to minimize the necessary amount of rudder usage. The tricycle landing gear is generally easier to handle than e.g a taildragger.
Of course one needs a certain amount of training and familiarisation with an Aircraft, which after a certain amount of hours, makes an Aircraft "easy to fly". Noone ever talked about simplifying the FDM to suit "Gamers", so no degression here, > The best models which have the higher quality must be presented first ( and > they won't never be "easy to fly"). > > I hopped that with the progress of FlightGear the work of the developers , > and > the know how of the FG community , we won't never fall into that so low > level of evaluation. > > We are not selling ties , socks, or underware in a shop, these articles are > easy to .... > No we are not selling anything, but as an OSS Project we are constantly looking for contributers, not only Aircraft developers, but also people who create or just place scenery models. So we are in some ways competing for contributors to our project. > We are promotting the higher know how of our community, with these > models "hard to fly". > > In the real life, does a Ferrari is easy to pilot ? > > Well, i am probably alone to think like that. > Most of the users, now, are only flightsimulator people who are looking for > an other "game" , and they have chosen FG because they have not to pay for > it. > > I can see that the next base package will answer their request, glad for > them. > > Bad for us. :( > Remember, the Concorde isn't gone. It is still downloadable from the Aircraft page. And it isn't the only one dropped from the base package. The p51d and bf109 are gone too. I offered to replace the bf109 with the F4U for usability reasons, but real life time constraints didn't allow to finish the F4U, so the decision is fine with me. The interested Aviators will find the Aircraft of their choice, even if it is not present in the base package. > Regards > > > Greetings -- Detlef Faber http://www.sol2500.net/flightgear ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
