> The variety makes the advantage.
> I remember an old A/C with a Tux piloting, i worry it has vanished from
> FG.
> When you are talking about stuff what do you mean?
> Do you mean that FG team must define a standard with a specific minimum
> to be done, to be acceptable? do you mean a jury must decide if that a/c
> is good or not?
> where is freedom?
> The quality of FG is coming from the FDM, as far as i know every
> existing a/c are correctly defined.
I think the aircraft are found in three different locations with different
audience and expectations.
1) The standard aircraft distributed with a release. New users will
immediately judge the quality of FG based on these and the default
scenery. These really should be very high quality, while showing off the
variety of simulations FG is capable of. I think should reduce the number
of variants delivered as well. We really only need one C172 in the
distribution.
2) The aircraft on the hangar page on the website. The current version and
status information doesn't really seem adequate to set the expectations of
new users, hence the complaints. Maybe we need to have two pages - one for
"production quality" and one for "in development"?
3) CVS aircraft. I don't see any need to "retire" aircraft from this.
Anyone compiling from CVS should be savvy enough to realize that some
aircraft are going to be in better state than others.
Obviously I should put my money where my mouth is. So, if we can come to a
concensous on which aircraft will be in the default package of the v0.9.9
release, I'll pitch in and polish some up, adding text to the help section
etc.
-Stuart
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
