On Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:11:50 AM Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2011 17:04:33 +0100 (BST), Pierre wrote in message
>
> <379675.56250...@web29801.mail.ird.yahoo.com>:
> > Hello,
> >
> > > ...looks like you fell into that same trap yourself. ;o)
> >
> > I'm not a English native speaker, but luckily I'm able to communicate
> > without Google translate.
> > But yes, I had trouble to understand what Mr. Baranger is really
> > meaning.
> >
> > I was actually refering to the sentence that he added another
> > aircraft and started to make two others and want to give much
> > pleasure(?). He seems to be quick adding aircraft- are they are
> > really all developed further and being usuable later?
> > In the whole context it sounded to me that a realistic aircraft, as
> > discussed here, wanted by those "1-2" person aren't a pleasure.
> >
> > Maybe a misunderstood.
>
> ..the whole "conflict" is a product of misunderstandings.
> Best cure is write in your own language if you need
> translation programs to read or write in the English
> language more than once a week.
>
> > >..the important ones to review, are those meant for inclusion into
> > >
> > > the release candidates, e.g. 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 etc, pull them with e.g.
> > > "git checkout -b releases/2.2.0 origin/releases/2.2.0" for both SG
> > > and FG, and you'll find far fewer and far better aircraft. ;o)
> > > http://wiki.flightgear.org/Building_Flightgear_-_Debian
> > > http://wiki.flightgear.org/Scripted_Compilation_on_Linux_Debian/Ubuntu
> > > http://wiki.flightgear.org/Building_FlightGear
> >
> > Thanks, I will take a look!
> >
> > > ...yup, is why and how this is a development project. ;o)
> > > Welcome aboard.
> >
> > I read in the forum that the GIT-version(?) is actually the
> > developement version of FGFS and includes all aircraft in
> > developement.
>
> ..there is a non-development version of FG? ;o)
> Everything is here so anyone can see _how_ the
> buggy ones fail, and try fix them.
>
> > So if there is a release they will be add to the
> > Download page, am I right?
>
> ..if somebody puts it there, yes. ;o)
>
> > I expected a far smaller number of
> > aircraft in developement and of course I didn't expect that all
> > aircraft will be usuable as they are in developement. But not that
> > high number! That are about 200-300 aircraft altogether I guess,
> > which will hardly be usuable.
>
> ..define "useable", newbie, then consider
> the developer bait context. ;o)
>
> > As a newbie it looks like for me quantity stands over qualitity...
> > *blush*
> > How many new aircraft are added each year? How can I see which
> > aircraft has been developed more than other, which aircraft are more
> > realistic?
>
> ..try "fgfs --show-aircraft --min-status=production "
>
>
> .."--min-status={alpha,beta,early-production,production}"
> Allows you to define a minimum status level
> (=development status) for all listed aircraft
>
Although this should give you a list of aircraft that have been tagged as
production quality it may miss some aircraft that are actually of very high
quality and some of the listed aircraft may not be truly "production" quality.
In fact looking at the list of "production" aircraft from my installation I
would say that some of these are not true production quality. In addition the
--min-status=production parm does not appear to work on my new GIT install as
it lists all of the installed aircraft (over 300 of them).
FGRUN also shows the aircraft status on the Select an Aircraft screen.
Another way to locate more developed aircraft is to check to see how much
space the aircraft uses on the file system. In general the bigger the
aircrafts directory the more developed it is. For example, the p51d (81.1 meg
- use the jsbsim version), MiG-15 (70.3 meg) and IAR80 (53.8 meg) all have
very big aircraft directories and are highly developed although I don't think
that any of the authors consider them to be complete yet. Using "--min-
status=production" should include the IAR80 in it's list but not the p51d-
jsbsim (which has a status of early production) or the MiG-15 (which has no
status information).
There have been long threads here and on the forums about the issue of helping
users locate the higher quality models. So this is a long standing and
significant issue. There was a rating system that was proposed here that would
have made it simple for aircraft authors to produce a consistent and verifiable
status for their aircraft. The system set a very high bar for the higher
status ratings. Status ratings in this system could be alpha, beta, early
production, production and advanced production. Using this system the p51d-
jsbsim model gets an early production status as did the c172p. Taking the
p51d-jsbsim up for a spin (pun intended) will give you an idea how well
developed a model under this system needs to be to get a production or
advanced production rating. Unfortunately it appears that only a few of the
models are actually using this system.
Hal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know!
Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its
next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran
developers boost performance applications - including clusters.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
