Buchanan, Stuart wrote: >>As I make my way down the list of so called "Flyable" planes, the only >>real >>contender is the B1900D - quite disheartening - really how many Cessna's >>do >>we really need?? and the rest - well they are too incomplete to fly!! > > > I think it depends on what sort of thing you prefer to fly. Are you > interested in GA, Airliner, historic, or military flying? > > Personally, I'm generally interested in flying GA, with the occassional > foray into military jets, so having a Cessna 150, 172 and 182 is great. > > Many of the military and historical planes are very high quality. The > Spitfire is fascinating. > > I don't have much experience with the airliners, but the Concorde model is > very good - with moving nose etc. > > However I think there is an issue that there are a large number of > not-quite-perfect aircraft which can detract from the exceedingly high > quality levels elsewhere. > > Many of them are no-longer in active development, and what they really > need is a bit of extra polish - improving the panels/textures, fixing the > minor bugs to bring them up to date with the capabilities of the latest > level of FG. I'm currently working on improving the C182 so it is up to > the same standard as the 152 and 172, and apart from everything else, it > is giving me a great insight into the internals of FlightGear. > > -Stuart > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with > voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users > 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d >
Perhaps we should track each aircraft's maintainer and more importantly, whether they are active or planning to be active with that AC soon. I think if we did that it would encourage people to step in and adopt planes. Even if a maintainer doesn't have a huge amount of extra time, they could still be an advocate and coordinate the work of other people on that AC. As it is now, I think there may be a reluctance to step on people's toes, so instead of finishing off an existing plane, people go out and start a new one which may or may not get completed. Meanwhile, planes that are in need of completion or updating to take advantage of new features become hangar queens. Additionally, this will also highlight planes that no one really cares about. That way instead of ditching the incomplete planes, we can instead ditch the ones that are incomplete and unwanted, then help bring along the ones that people do want to fly. Josh PS, I'm still working on the B29 and Canberra, but having trouble getting FG to compile and run right. As soon as that happens I can make the final sprint to a v1.0 B29. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
