Adding to Hal's comments: On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Hal V. Engel wrote: > On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 03:02:09 PM Vivian Meazza wrote: >> 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.
Yes - these are now covered by the Systems rating, which feels like a much better place than my original suggestion of External Model. >> It would benefit from a tutorial on the start 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 was having a think about this myself today. I don't think having a tutorial is critical for a particular rating, but I do think that the start procedure should be documented in-sim, either in the aircraft help or as a tutorial. "Accurate startup procedure" is already a criteria for a System:3 rating. I propose that we change this to read "Accurate startup procedure, documented in-sim (aircraft help or tutorial)" Does that sound sufficient? Of course, this doesn't cover all the other procedures that we might want documented, but it is common to all (powered) aircraft. >> 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. I think this is certainly a step in the right direction. The system isn't perfect, and I'm sure there are some aircraft that will end up under-rated and some over-rated, but it will certainly sort the wheat from the chaff and give new users and idea of what to expect from a given aircraft. If a new user looks at "early production" aircraft, they should get a very good impression of the quality available from FG. "The perfect is the enemy of the good." - Voltaire (but "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire) -Stuart ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
