On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 03:02:09 PM Vivian Meazza wrote:
> Hal,
>
> I can't follow your logic - because there are some aircraft that need a lot
> of work, the system shouldn't recognize "advanced features" in other
> aircraft that do have them?
I should have been clearer - Sorry. What I was trying to say is that we
shouldn't need special cases to include this type of stuff in the rating.
> I also disagree with Stuart that such advanced
> features are nice-to-haves and add little to the simulation - why the hell
> are we including them then? Do the stores so nicely added to the P-51 add
> nothing?
These add a lot. I treated them as systems and included them in Systems
rating. Seemed like the right way to handle this stuff to me.
> On the other hand, the ability to change liveries adds to the
> model? Sure doesn't wring my withers, but I suppose the airliner
> aficionados (and I'm not one) absolutely must have that.
I agree with this (IE. that liveries only make sense for some models). Stuart
changed the External Model category to make liveries optional to get a 4 or
above.
> The P-51 is a superb model already, and at a reasonable frame rate here -
> about 75% of my benchmark figure.
The yasim p51d gets about 35 FPS on my older system (it's probably a mid level
system by todays standards) and the jsbsim version gets about 22 FPS under the
same conditions. Considering how much more detail there is in the JSBSim
cockpit I think it does OK frame rate wise.
> It would benefit from a tutorial on the start procedure -
It does have a complete startup check list/procedure in the aircraft specific
help that is basically copied from the pilots manual. The startup is fairly
simple (comparable to a single engine GA aircraft) so most users should be
able to get it running by reading the startup check list/procedure.
>
> but apparently that would win no points either. That seems to be a missed
> opportunity too.
I agree that the quality of the aircraft specific help and the existence of
tutorials needs to be factored into the rating system some how.
> I suppose the P-51 FDM is accurate -
> but I find it not all that pleasant to fly.
There is a high pilot work load during take off and initial climb out and this
makes things "unpleasant" during those part of a flight. Once up to or above
normal climb speed and trimmed it becomes fairly easy to fly. It also can be a
handful in high G maneuvers since it will snap if there is a yaw angle as you
approach stall. You can appoach stall at fairly high speeds in high G
maneuvers without blacking out. FG pilots will likely find this behavior
surprising since the JSBSim P-51D is the only FG aircraft I know of that will
do this. But after the pilot gets used to this behavior it gives the pilot a
level of feedback near stall that is very useful.
> I would say that you have probably slightly underrated its score.
>
I may have been overly critical with my ranking but I have a very long todo
list and I am acutely aware of how much work remains to be done. I think this
is a common situation among those who are trying to create very high quality
models and I also believe that most individuals trying to create high quality
models will tend to "underrate" their own models. I think this is a good
thing since it sets a very high bar.
>
> In the final analysis - the system currently proposed is only marginally
> better than the current "wet finger in the air" method. I think we are
> falling a bit short here in our aim to be both objective, and to tell users
> more about the available aircraft.
This I don't totally agree with. The system is far from perfect but at least
we have a documented rating system that is somewhat objective and fairly easy
to do. We can improve on it going forward to make it more complete and what
we have now is a good starting place and is clearly better than the "wet finger
in the air" method.
> In particular, the failure to tell users
> that they need a powerful system to use a model, and something about the
> difficulty of use, is going to disappoint and or frustrate users.
>
I think these are separate issues from rating model maturity.
Hal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger.
Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe,
secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic?
Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
