Re: [Flightgear-devel] Which aircraft to include in v0.9.9?

[AJ MacLeod]

On Wednesday 09 November 2005 19:31, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> Just glancing through the list very quickly, potential candidates for
> inclusion might be the b1900d, Citation Bravo, Concorde, dhc2, F-8E,
> Hurricane, Marchetti, MiG-15, seahawk, Spitfire, tu154 ... (?)

> Any opinions?  Note that if you propose adding an airplane, you also
> have to say which one we remove from the existing list ...

I think, especially in view of the spate of posts a short while ago, it would 
be wise to only include (by default) aircraft which are quite complete - i.e. 
with populated cockpits etc.  People who know what they want and what they're 
doing can easily download the others.

My vote would probably go for the Spitfire - that way you actually get two 
planes for the price of one, and one of those is carrier capable - I think we 
should make sure we have at least one or two carrier capable planes 
distributed by default.

To remove... probably the one of the Cessnas (purely personal tastes!) or the 
Wright Flyer (which I'd say is kind of "special interest" and not that useful 
for general flying).  Anyway, like you say anything removed would still be 
there for download...

AJ

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Which aircraft to include in v0.9.9?

[Stefan Seifert]

Before 0.9.9 is released I think one problem should be resolved: on some 
planes (like the 737, f16, Concorde, fokker100) the engine sounds are 
missing. Specifically Sounds/jet.wav is not audible.


I discussed this problem some weeks ago on the IRC channel and tried to 
find out what's causing it. It's no local problem and happens to all 
planes that use the /engines/engine[0]/thrust_lb[0] property for volume 
calculation. I had to stop investigating due to some real life stealing 
my time, but I'm sure this should be fixed before a release.


If someone has an idea what caused this I could spend some more time for 
debugging.


Nine

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Which aircraft to include in v0.9.9?

[Jim Wilson]

> From: "Curtis L. Olson"
> 
> I reserve the right to make the final determination (and all 
> non-included aircraft will still always be available for separate 
> download from the web site ...)
> 
> Given that new aircraft have arrived on the scene since the last 
> release, do we want to make any changes to the list of default aircraft 
> included in the base package?
> 
> The rule generally is that if we add one, we have to remove an existing 
> one so the total number of included aircraft remains about the same...
> 
> The current list is:
> 
> data/Aircraft/737 \
> data/Aircraft/A-10 \
> data/Aircraft/bo105 \
> data/Aircraft/c172 \
> data/Aircraft/c172p \
> data/Aircraft/c310 \
> data/Aircraft/c310u3a \
> data/Aircraft/Citation \
> data/Aircraft/f16 \
> data/Aircraft/j3cub \
> data/Aircraft/Hunter \
> data/Aircraft/p51d \
> data/Aircraft/pa28-161 \
> data/Aircraft/ufo \
> data/Aircraft/wrightFlyer1903 \
>  

Well I'm going to pick on and promote the ones I've submitted or collaborated 
on.  

1). A-10 - Andy might disagree,  but I think the A-10 should go and be replaced 
with something nicer.

2). C310/C310U3A - I do not recall why there is a Cessna 310 and Cessna 310u3a 
(except I added the U-3A 3d model several years ago). It seems that one could 
be removed to make room for others.  The flight models are pretty good on the 
C310s, but it would be nice to see it one either finished up (as a civilian 
C-310) or another light twin completed for release 1.0.

3). J3 - The J3-Cub is complete (not much to cubs anyway) and easy to fly for 
someone just starting out.

4). P-51D - Jon never did do a flight model for it :-), but the original 
premise that got me started on it was Jon Berndt's interest in the tail dragger 
modeling and the idea of having a model that matches the FlightGear logo.  I 
still think it is a pretty good model (if I may say so myself ;-)).

5). 1903 Wright Flyer - Finally I think the Wright Flyer should stay just for 
historical and educational interest, not to mention that it is a fairly 
complete and good simulation.  It isn't good for a cross country but neither 
was the original.

6). UFO - The only one that isn't mine that I'd pick on is the UFO.  I'd rather 
see that one ditched before anything listed above.  It certainly is the least 
sophisticated simulation ;-)  (Ah, but you say, who knows how a real flying 
saucer works?!)  Anyone needing it for model or scenery development could 
download it easily enough.

Best,

Jim



___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Which aircraft to include in v0.9.9?

[Erik Hofman]

Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I reserve the right to make the final determination (and all 
non-included aircraft will still always be available for separate 
download from the web site ...)


Given that new aircraft have arrived on the scene since the last 
release, do we want to make any changes to the list of default aircraft 
included in the base package?


The rule generally is that if we add one, we have to remove an existing 
one so the total number of included aircraft remains about the same...


The current list is:

   data/Aircraft/737 \
   data/Aircraft/A-10 \
   data/Aircraft/bo105 \


This is a nice selection

   data/Aircraft/c172 \

This one can be removed (no more dependencies)


   data/Aircraft/c172p \
   data/Aircraft/c310 \
   data/Aircraft/c310u3a \

I would switch the c310 for the Citation or B1900d

   data/Aircraft/Citation \
   data/Aircraft/f16 \
   data/Aircraft/j3cub \
   data/Aircraft/Hunter \
   data/Aircraft/p51d \
   data/Aircraft/pa28-161 \
   data/Aircraft/ufo \

This would be Santa until 1.0?

   data/Aircraft/wrightFlyer1903 \



Erik

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Which aircraft to include in v0.9.9?

[Innis Cunningham]

Hi Stefan

 Stefan Seifert writes


Before 0.9.9 is released I think one problem should be resolved: on some 
planes (like the 737, f16, Concorde, fokker100) the engine sounds are 
missing. Specifically Sounds/jet.wav is not audible.


I discussed this problem some weeks ago on the IRC channel and tried to 
find out what's causing it. It's no local problem and happens to all planes 
that use the /engines/engine[0]/thrust_lb[0] property for volume 
calculation. I had to stop investigating due to some real life stealing my 
time, but I'm sure this should be fixed before a release.


I do a lot of my model testing on a 9.4 copy of FG and the engine sound
is working just fine there.I will check out the 737 in 9.8 today and see if 
I

can get to the bottom of it


If someone has an idea what caused this I could spend some more time for 
debugging.


Nine


Cheers
Innis



___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Which aircraft to include in v0.9.9?

[Stefan Seifert]

Innis Cunningham wrote:


Hi Stefan

 Stefan Seifert writes



Before 0.9.9 is released I think one problem should be resolved: on 
some planes (like the 737, f16, Concorde, fokker100) the engine 
sounds are missing. Specifically Sounds/jet.wav is not audible.


I discussed this problem some weeks ago on the IRC channel and tried 
to find out what's causing it. It's no local problem and happens to 
all planes that use the /engines/engine[0]/thrust_lb[0] property for 
volume calculation. I had to stop investigating due to some real life 
stealing my time, but I'm sure this should be fixed before a release.



I do a lot of my model testing on a 9.4 copy of FG and the engine sound
is working just fine there.I will check out the 737 in 9.8 today and 
see if I

can get to the bottom of it


Sorry, should have given some more information (has been a little late 
yesterday): the problem started somewhere in the first three weeks of 
October. I do not have a more specific date, since I was on vacation on 
that time. It still persists in the current CVS version. The aircraft 
datafiles did not change, so it has to be somewhere in FlightGear or 
maybe SimGear code, but I have still too little experience to say more. 
Maybe I'll get to some more testing on the weekend.


Nine

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Which aircraft to include in v0.9.9?

[Buchanan, Stuart]

--- Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >data/Aircraft/c172p \
> >data/Aircraft/c310 \
> >data/Aircraft/c310u3a \
> I would switch the c310 for the Citation or B1900d
I agree - the c310u3A is much nicer.

> >data/Aircraft/wrightFlyer1903 \
I'd be tempted to ditch this one - new users are unlikely to (be able to)
fly it.

BTW Curt, could you publish the final list once you've decided? If there
is enough time, I'd like to include a paragraph or two on each of the
planes in the Getting Started Guide.

-Stuart





___ 
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail 
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Which aircraft to include in v0.9.9?

[Vassilii Khachaturov]

> 3). J3 - The J3-Cub is complete (not much to cubs anyway) and easy to
> fly for someone just starting out.

A real life Cub has a ball slip/skid indicator (just like in a turn
coordinator), and a wire sticking out of the fuel cap in front,
showing the fuel level. Other than that, it's pretty complete indeed.
(Well, except that maybe real life Cubs are so much harder to start up...)


___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Which aircraft to include in v0.9.9?

[Thorben]

On Wednesday 09 November 2005 19:31, Curtis L. Olson wrote:

> The current list is:
>
> data/Aircraft/737 \
> data/Aircraft/A-10 \
> data/Aircraft/bo105 \
> data/Aircraft/c172 \
> data/Aircraft/c172p \
> data/Aircraft/c310 \
> data/Aircraft/c310u3a \
> data/Aircraft/Citation \
> data/Aircraft/f16 \
> data/Aircraft/j3cub \
> data/Aircraft/Hunter \
> data/Aircraft/p51d \
> data/Aircraft/pa28-161 \
> data/Aircraft/ufo \
> data/Aircraft/wrightFlyer1903 \
>
> Just glancing through the list very quickly, potential candidates for
> inclusion might be the b1900d, Citation Bravo, Concorde, dhc2, F-8E,
> Hurricane, Marchetti, MiG-15, seahawk, Spitfire, tu154 ... (?)

b1900d is my favourite plane, as it flies very well, has decent sound and a 
really good cockpit. And even the propeller blade pitch is animated

i would ditch either the wright flyer, c310, ufo, c172 or Hunter  in favor of 
b1900d. but i don't expect you to agree with me in all respects.

thorben

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Which aircraft to include in v0.9.9?

[Martin Spott]

Erik Hofman wrote:
> Curtis L. Olson wrote:

>> The rule generally is that if we add one, we have to remove an existing 
>> one so the total number of included aircraft remains about the same...
>> 
>> The current list is:
>> 
>>data/Aircraft/737 \
>>data/Aircraft/A-10 \
>>data/Aircraft/bo105 \

> This is a nice selection
[...]


I support Erik's proposal as-is,
Martin.
-- 
 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Which aircraft to include in v0.9.9?

[George Patterson]

On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 10:34 +, Thorben wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 November 2005 19:31, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> 
> > The current list is:
> >
> > data/Aircraft/737 \
> > data/Aircraft/A-10 \
> > data/Aircraft/bo105 \
> > data/Aircraft/c172 \
> > data/Aircraft/c172p \
> > data/Aircraft/c310 \
> > data/Aircraft/c310u3a \
> > data/Aircraft/Citation \
> > data/Aircraft/f16 \
> > data/Aircraft/j3cub \
> > data/Aircraft/Hunter \
> > data/Aircraft/p51d \
> > data/Aircraft/pa28-161 \
> > data/Aircraft/ufo \
> > data/Aircraft/wrightFlyer1903 \
> >
> > Just glancing through the list very quickly, potential candidates for
> > inclusion might be the b1900d, Citation Bravo, Concorde, dhc2, F-8E,
> > Hurricane, Marchetti, MiG-15, seahawk, Spitfire, tu154 ... (?)
> 
> b1900d is my favourite plane, as it flies very well, has decent sound and a 
> really good cockpit. And even the propeller blade pitch is animated
> 
> i would ditch either the wright flyer, c310, ufo, c172 or Hunter  in favor of 
> b1900d. but i don't expect you to agree with me in all respects.
> 
> thorben
> 

I second adding the b1900d for the above reasons. Drop the ufo as fun as
it is for testing purposes it has no cockpit, and can't be verified as
to the realism of the flight model. Just my opinion. The Wright Flyer
could also be dropped as it's not really flyable (IMO).


George Patterson



___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Which aircraft to include in v0.9.9?

[James Turner]

On 9 Nov 2005, at 19:31, Curtis L. Olson wrote:I reserve the right to make the final determination (and all non-included aircraft will still always be available for separate download from the web site ...)  Given that new aircraft have arrived on the scene since the last release, do we want to make any changes to the list of default aircraft included in the base package?  The rule generally is that if we add one, we have to remove an existing one so the total number of included aircraft remains about the same... De-lurking for a moment,I recall the original intention was to include at least one aircraft from each common category (single, light twin, heavy twin, bizjet, etc). The new criteria seems to be features / polish / completion - I'm not arguing which criteria makes more sense for a 0.9.9 or 1.0 release, but that's why the c310 is in, as I understand it - in the absence of a Baron or Diamond TwinStar, it's the only light twin that really exists with a model and cockpit. It's had very little love, and the default skin has been the military variant, which a few people have objected too in the past.If the argument about 'covering the categories' still holds, then replacing the c310 with b1900d is moot - for sure the b1900 should go in, because it's polished and slick, but it's a totally different class of aircraft (replacing the DC-3 with the b1900d would be more equivalent, but there are other reasons the DC3 is nice)Anyway, I guess all I'm really saying is, it sounds as if the criteria for inclusion have shifted changed, and that's fine, but it might put the existing aircraft selection from 0.9.8 in a new perspective.JamesPS - any time someone wants to do the TwinStar, I am prepared to offer all kinds of bribery! Cash, beer, you name it! -- Morbo finds all humans pathetic  ___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Which aircraft to include in v0.9.9?

[Innis Cunningham]

 Stefan Seifert writes


Innis Cunningham wrote:



I do a lot of my model testing on a 9.4 copy of FG and the engine sound
is working just fine there.I will check out the 737 in 9.8 today and see 
if I

can get to the bottom of it


Sorry, should have given some more information (has been a little late 
yesterday): the problem started somewhere in the first three weeks of 
October. I do not have a more specific date, since I was on vacation on 
that time. It still persists in the current CVS version. The aircraft 
datafiles did not change, so it has to be somewhere in FlightGear or maybe 
SimGear code, but I have still too little experience to say more. Maybe 
I'll get to some more testing on the weekend.


Have checked my sound on the release version of 9.8 on both Win 98
and Mandrake linux 10.0(duel boot box) and the sound seems to work
fine on both systems.


Nine


Cheers
Innis



___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Which aircraft to include in v0.9.9?

[Georg Vollnhals]

Steve Knoblock schrieb:


My first impression of FlightGear on Windows was soured by the first aircraft I 
choose. It
was the Cessna with full IFR panel. The panel was upside down and very
strange. It didn't make a good first impression and left me confused.
If I had not been persistent I might have gave up on it right there.

 


I remember this very clear, I was the same when I tried V0.9.8!


Moreover, I could not figure out why there were so many Cessna's and
what the differences were. An aircraft should be operational, not in a
state of development if it is to be included in the official
distribution. Aircraft in development can be downloaded individually.
Aircraft should not be incomplete, missing panels, incomplete
instruments, etc. I realize this is not easy given the open source and
experimental nature of Flight Gear development.

 

There was a review/test of FlightGear in "linux user, November 2005", a 
very popular German linux magazin. Although they gave FlightGear 4 full 
pages, scenery on their cover CD and a lot of very usable hints aimed to 
flightsim beginners they complained about missing panels, missing 
instruments, missing Transponder (and a lot of other things like "bad" 
flightmodel ((due to missing stall characteristics)), missing structural 
damage, missing red and white-blackout, missing higher-level ATC, 
missing colleason detection ((they might have proved it with the ... 
objects)).
Their last recommendation was not what we would like to see  and we 
could say "simply ignore it" but a *lot* of linux user are reading this 
magazin and potentially flightsim interested people get the wrong 
impression by this  review. :-(


This means for me - an official release is always some PR for the 
FlightGear project and the chance to get some people interested, might 
be even starting some "user" development (small projects) or  to loose 
them before they have had the chance to see what FlightGear can offer today!
And after my opinion there is a need for people who do some work outside 
the "core" development - make some more nice generic models for FG that 
can be used for scenery design, improve airports, make repaints, even do 
3D aircraft modelling.
This was the typical "work sharing" what I experienced when I was active 
for another flightsim (FLY! II). And even core developers may like it to 
fly a nice little scenery a pure user was able to create. To be honest, 
also some *easy* tools are lacking now to enable pure users to do such 
work without too much knowledge about the internal FlightGear stuff.

Just a dream for the future :-)


I agree with the idea of removing the UFO in favor of a more useful
and complete aircraft. 
..

I think it's important to keep the most widely used general aviation
craft, like Cessna and Piper 
..

Most users will want a light single engine general aviation aircraft
they are familiar with. The Cessna fills this niche and is the most
popular. I suggest one "classic" and one modern Cessna single.




Of course the "linux user magazine" used the Cessna *172* to make the 
first testflights and (very clever!) they recommended the *ufo* to get 
familiar with the main functions of FlightGear when the reader had no 
knowledge of flightsims before taking off  with the Cessna (what they 
described step for step in a really professional manner).


So, after having said all this, my opinion is only to add very complete 
(3D, panel, flightmodel) aircraft to the new release.

Interested people can download, it is very easy.

Regards
Georg

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Which aircraft to include in v0.9.9?

[Oliver C.]

On Friday 11 November 2005 01:43, Georg Vollnhals wrote:
>
> There was a review/test of FlightGear in "linux user, November 2005", a
> very popular German linux magazin. Although they gave FlightGear 4 full
> pages, scenery on their cover CD and a lot of very usable hints aimed to
> flightsim beginners they complained about missing panels, missing
> instruments, missing Transponder (and a lot of other things like "bad"
> flightmodel ((due to missing stall characteristics)), missing structural
> damage, missing red and white-blackout, missing higher-level ATC,
> missing colleason detection ((they might have proved it with the ...
> objects)).
> Their last recommendation was not what we would like to see  and we
> could say "simply ignore it" but a *lot* of linux user are reading this
> magazin and potentially flightsim interested people get the wrong
> impression by this  review. :-(

Here is the online version of this review:
http://www.linux-user.de/ausgabe/2005/11/070-flightgear/


Best Regards,
 Oliver C.

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Which aircraft to include in v0.9.9?

[Martin Spott]

Ima Sudonim wrote:

>  user.de%2Fausgabe%2F2005%2F11%2F070-flightgear%2F&langpair=de% 
> 7Cen&hl=en&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools>

Oh yeah: "flies are still an expensive pleasure"  :-)

Martin.
-- 
 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Which aircraft to include in v0.9.9?

[Josh Babcock]

Martin Spott wrote:
> Ima Sudonim wrote:
> 
> 
>>>user.de%2Fausgabe%2F2005%2F11%2F070-flightgear%2F&langpair=de% 
>>7Cen&hl=en&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools>
> 
> 
> Oh yeah: "flies are still an expensive pleasure"  :-)
> 
>   Martin.

Damn right. Do you know how much money it costs to upgrade a fly from
"annoying" to "pleasurable"? A lot, let me tell you!

Josh

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Which aircraft to include in v0.9.9?

[Martin Spott]

Josh Babcock wrote:
> Martin Spott wrote:

>> Oh yeah: "flies are still an expensive pleasure"  :-)

> Damn right. Do you know how much money it costs to upgrade a fly from
> "annoying" to "pleasurable"?

Yes, I do, but my system is not that expensive. You need a money purse
and good visual judgement 
That's much more fun than a simple fly flap  :-)

Cheers,
Martin.
-- 
 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Which aircraft to include in v0.9.9?

[Ampere K. Hardraade]

On November 11, 2005 06:23 am, Martin Spott wrote:
> Ima Sudonim wrote:
> >  > user.de%2Fausgabe%2F2005%2F11%2F070-flightgear%2F&langpair=de%
> > 7Cen&hl=en&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools>
>
> Oh yeah: "flies are still an expensive pleasure"  :-)
>
>   Martin.

It is pretty enjoyable to kill them with elastic bands.

Ampere

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Which aircraft to include in v0.9.9?

[Jim Wilson]

> From: James Turner
> 

>  De-lurking for a moment,I recall the original intention was to include at 
> least one aircraft > from each common category (single, light twin, heavy 
> twin, bizjet, etc). The new criteria 
> seems to be features / polish / completion - I'm not arguing which criteria 
> makes more sense > for a 0.9.9 or 1.0 release, but that's why the c310 is in, 
> as I understand it - in the absence 
> of a Baron or Diamond TwinStar, it's the only light twin that really exists 
> with a model and > cockpit. It's had very little love, and the default skin 
> has been the military variant, which > a few people have objected too in the 
> past.If the argument about 'covering the categories' 
> still holds, then replacing the c310 with b1900d is moot - for sure the b1900 
> should go in,
> because it's polished and slick, but it's a totally different class of 
> aircraft (replacing 
> the DC-3 with the b1900d would be more equivalent, but there are other 
> reasons the DC3 is 
> nice)Anyway, I guess all I'm really saying is, it sounds as if the criteria 
> for inclusion have 
> shifted changed, and that's fine, but it might put the existing aircraft 
> selection from 0.9.8 
> in a new perspective.JamesPS - any time someone wants to do the TwinStar, I 
> am prepared to 
> offer all kinds of bribery! Cash, beer, you name it! --


Still behind on reading the list.   I agree with James here.  Also it should be 
pointed out that the quality of the JSBSim FDM for the c310 is very high even 
though the eye candy is limited.

Best,

Jim



___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Which aircraft to include in v0.9.9?

[Steve Knoblock]

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:55:35 -0600, you wrote:

>I think, especially in view of the spate of posts a short while ago, it would 
>be wise to only include (by default) aircraft which are quite complete - i.e. 
>with populated cockpits etc.  People who know what they want and what they're 
>doing can easily download the others.

It would be very helpful, and good public relations for aircraft
included by default to be complete and flyable. My first impression of
FlightGear on Windows was soured by the first aircraft I choose. It
was the Cessna with full IFR panel. The panel was upside down and very
strange. It didn't make a good first impression and left me confused.
If I had not been persistent I might have gave up on it right there.

Moreover, I could not figure out why there were so many Cessna's and
what the differences were. An aircraft should be operational, not in a
state of development if it is to be included in the official
distribution. Aircraft in development can be downloaded individually.
Aircraft should not be incomplete, missing panels, incomplete
instruments, etc. I realize this is not easy given the open source and
experimental nature of Flight Gear development.

I agree with the idea of removing the UFO in favor of a more useful
and complete aircraft. There are several aircraft in the collection I
would prefer being in the default set over the UFO craft. However,
there should be some note to developers that this is useful to
download for use in scenery development. I may have overlooked it, but
as far as I can tell, there is no "slew mode" available in FG, which
makes it difficult to position a normal aircraft so you can check
scenery when developing buildings, airports, etc. If the UFO is the
only way to emulate slewing, then perhaps it should be retained.

I would like to retain the Wright Flyer to represent aviation history.
I think everyone new to flight sim wonders what it would be like to
fly the Wright Flyer. However, I found it unflyable, so in the end I
think it should be replaced by a more flyable aircraft.

Aircraft without a 3D model should be avoided in the default
distribution (No "FDM only").

The J3 Cub is attractively modeled and shows off what can be done with
Flight Gear aircraft. It is also an easy to fly, good introductory
aircraft.

I decided I should ask myself, is there an aircraft now in the
collection that I would prefer over one in the default?

Here's my list.

737 (Boeing 737) --- Keep.
A-10 (Fairchild A-10) --- Replace with Spitfire (hate to do it, but
makes sense).
bo105 (Helicopter) --- Keep.
c172 (Cessna) --- Replace with updated Cessna 182.
c172p (Cessna) --- Keep.
c310 (Cessna 310) --- Replace with B1900D.
c310u3a (Cessna 310) --- Keep.
Citation (Citation II) --- Keep.
f16 (F-16) --- Keep
j3cub (J3 Cub) --- Keep.
hunter (Hawker Hunter) --- Keep
p51d (Mustang P-51D) --- Keep.
pa38-161 (Piper Warrior) --- Keep.
ufo (developer) --- Replace with PC-7.
wright flyer (Wright Flyer) --- Replace with DH Beaver.



It is difficult to decide when trying to fill out the categories when
the best aircraft do not fall evenly into those categories. Aircraft
in one category may be more complete and polished than aircraft in
others.

One could argue there is a place for at least one glider and one
bi-plane in the default collection. If there are no glider specific
areas with thermals, then I suggest leaving the glider out until more
glider support is available. The only bi-plane is the Sopwith, so
perhaps that can wait.

Arguably, there should be a representative jet fighter aircraft, one
American and one European, but if it takes away room for a general
aviation, etc. perhaps only one jet fighter should be represented. And
the same might be said for second world war aircraft. The P-51D and
Spitfire as easy choices, since they are good models. The F16 is
probably the best choice for an American jet fighter. The Hunter seems
easy to fly.

The same policy could be for commercial airliners. With the Boeing 737
and the Airbus A320 each being represented.

At least one helicopter should be available, but if it is unflyable,
I'd say replace it with something else.

I think it's important to keep the most widely used general aviation
craft, like Cessna and Piper and one or two major historic aircraft,
such as the Cub, DC3. The Comper Swift is in the same vein as the J3,
but in beta status. At least one aircraft from the early era of
general aviation should be in the default package.

Most users will want a light single engine general aviation aircraft
they are familiar with. The Cessna fills this niche and is the most
popular. I suggest one "classic" and one modern Cessna single.

The Beaver is one of my favorite aircraft. It is both from the era I
find interesting and capable of bush flying. It is slow and fairly
easy to fly and can operate on water or land. A good model, if not the
most refined, but lacking in hot spots on 3d cockpit controls.

The Piper Warrior fills the need fo