On Monday, May 23, 2011 04:18:46 PM Pierre Mueller wrote:
> >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.
>
> Thanks, I didn't see the little box under the list yet. But it is a bit
> hard to browse through this big list to find the more attractive aircraft
> .... Getting the list by the good ol DOS-box was a bit easier- still a big
> list as you said...
>
> > 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).
>
> Thanks for the hint
>
> >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
>
> So whats so difficult to use this rating system?
>
> Regards
> P.M.
I used it for the P-51D and found the system to be easy to use and it took all
of perhaps 10 to 15 minutes to create ratings for the four areas that get
scored and then create the entries in the *set.xml file. The system is easy to
use and for less advanced models should only take perhaps 5 minutes to do.
More advanced models take a little more effort but the system is clearly not
burdensomeness for aircraft authors to implement.
The real issue is to get a consensus with in the aircraft author community to
use a standardized rating system like this and I don't think this has happened
yet. Once there is wide spread agreement on something like this it should
fall into place fairly quickly.
One thing that might be stalling this is that there is currently no published
description of the proposed system (I will call it Stuart's system) available
other than searching this email list and a few things on the forum. At one
point Stuart said he would create a document that covers his system but this
has not happened yet and the only way to find it is to search the archives and
even then the information is spread over a number of emails. Making things
even more confusing there is a wiki page on this subject
http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Formalizing_Aircraft_Status
which does not cover Stuart's system but rahter a totally differnt system. In
fact the system proposed on the wiki is more complex and has no details on how
the ratings would be made unlike Stuart's system. The details on how to rate
various things is one of the key aspects of Stuart's system along with it's
relative simplicity. Perhaps we can get the wiki page so that it reflects
Stuart's system?
Hal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security.
With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery,
you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection.
Download your free trial now.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
