On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Vivian Meazza wrote: > Stuart > >> >> > Thanks for addressing the points that were hammered out over on the IRC >> > channel. I think the modified system could work. Just a few points >> remain: >> > >> > There is no penalty for including systems, such as an AP, where none >> existed >> > on the original. >> >> There's not an explicit penalty. but I think Hal has addressed this in >> the notes >> for the System criteria: >> >> "Ignore systems not present on the aircraft IRL. If the real aircraft >> doesn't have >> a system (e.g. autopilot), the FG model shouldn't have either and if >> all systems >> in the real aircraft are modeled then it scores a 5 even if it is a >> very simple aircraft. " >> >> I'm not sure how much of a problem this is. If someone chooses not to >> disable the >> generic autopilot for a vintage aircraft, it will have no effect on >> pilots who choose >> to fly realistically (they simply won't use it). If the system is >> exposed in the cockpit, >> then it is covered by the rating for accuracy of cockpit - a KAP140 in >> the Sopwith >> Camel would obviously not be worth a 4 or 5 cockpit rating. > > > That is correct - but it doesn't follow from the criteria quoted above.
I've added "No unrealistic systems" to the System-3 rating criteria, with an exception for autopilot. I've also attempted to provide some useful guidance notes. >> We're talking here about the difference between a 4 or 5 External >> Model rating, where >> we're trying to differentiate between a good external model and one that >> is as >> realistic as possible. >> >> I think we should differentiate between them if possible, but I'm >> struggling to think >> up some objective criteria. Photo-realistic? model resolution of 5cm? >> >> Perhaps we end up providing subjective criteria, or some additional >> guidance >> in this case? > > I think guidance - livery shouldn't be a criterion for realism, but it might > form part of it. Realism is the goal. I've modified the rating and guidance as follows: # 4: Accurate 3D model with animated control surfaces, gear, prop, livery support (if applicable). # 5: Highly accurate 3D model (down to minor components such as control rods), with animated control surfaces, gear, prop, livery support, tyre smoke, shader effects. "Objectively differentiating between a 4 and a 5 is very difficult. As a guideline, a "5" model is as realistic as possible given the available rendering technology. " >> I don't have a good answer for the other items. Some are nice-to-haves >> that enrich >> the simulation experience but don't impact simulation of flight >> itself, but others >> (such as a co-pilot) are more important for multi-crew aircraft. > > Call them all "advanced features". That could be a/the criterion for > "advanced production" I'm not sure. The "Advanced production" bar is already very high - two 5s and two 4s. I'm not sure if any aircraft will actually gain it! >> Of course, we're trusting that aircraft developers are going to apply the >> rating >> criteria accurately to the best of their ability. > > Yes - I think perhaps a bit of spot-checking to keep us all honest? Assuming this gets widely adopted, I think it'll be self-policing. Users are going to notice if an aircraft falls below the general criteria. >> > Oh and, finally finally - the model with the highest score might be so >> good >> > that the framerate means that it can only be used on high-end systems or >> > away from detailed airports. This limitation should be noted somewhere. >> >> I don't have a good answer to that. Does that become criteria for a "5" in >> External Model? I think this ends up back as something subjective. > > > I think we need some form of bench-mark - perhaps the default model at KSFO > with certain (all?) features enabled. The aircraft to be rated scores a % > framerate above or below this norm? Thinking aloud here a bit. Perhaps > that's a bit too fancy. I think that's going to vary so much between graphics systems, plus I'm not sure that graphics degradation is linear - it always seems to fall off a cliff for me :) >> If enough people rate their aircraft and we can use it to provide a better >> download page for the upcoming release, it will succeed. >> > > Let's hope - some aircraft developers have an awful lot of aircraft to rate. Given his standardized workflow, I think Helijah will be able to apply pretty much the same rating to most of his new models, and retrospectively fit his existing aircraft as well. Hal V. Engel wrote: >> Hadn't thought about that at all. I've added it to the criteria for a > >> "4" rating. > > I would treat these as just another system. I think the systems catigory is > a difficult one because of how much difference there is between very simple > aircraft (think sailplane) and a very complex one (think Concorde). This > makes it very difficult to have a rating system that results in similar > scores for aircraft that have proportionally complete systems but that are > of very different complexity. I am not sure how to improve this but I think > it is important to keep it simple. I've moved the external stores to the "Systems" category as you suggest - given that the challenge in modelling is modelling the release system. Inevitably it's going to be much easier to get a Systems:5 rating for a glider as opposed to an airliner. In fact, I would be amazed if any airliners achieve that rating. I guess the Tu-154 might. That said, I think that is reasonable from a user perspective. If someone wants to properly simulate a modern airliner flight, they will want a working FMS. -Stuart ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
