On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 15:47:37 +0000 (GMT), Buchanan, wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 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. ..maybe. The C172 is well modelled and known etc for anything but sex appeal. ;o) > 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"? ..here we can allow non-GPL plane links in a non-GPL hangar page, using the ugly P word, and those non-GPL guys stick in all the litigation prep work into each of all their planes, with an ugly big ass "I accept all the contractual terms" button to scare sane people home into GPL planes. > 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. ..these will have to be compatible with the GPL, or come from their own repository. > 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. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
