Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
On Friday 07 December 2007 14:40:34 gerard robin wrote: Making the 3D model shape is the easiest (5% of the work, more or less 24 hours of work, but very complicated shape) There is a lot of stuff to do: =the cockpit must completed (versus the A10, Alexy has spent so many time to do it) =the 3D model is missing a lot of details (maybe the user did notice it, but the author knows it) =An improvement of the texture, and probably some variants =the FDM which not right, close to the real one, must be done fully All very true - and this doesn't even really mention all the various systems that might be involved - electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic, radars, weapons etc. I agree that we need a better indication of state of completion for the models on the downloads page, but as far as I can see it will have to be a very basic overview. I'm not a fan of simplistic star ratings, but if the stars are for degree of completion and every star has a well-defined meaning, the idea might well have some merit (merely as a rough indication of what to expect). Stars for artistic competence and brilliance of execution should be avoided, I think. We have some stunning models and I personally make a point of mentioning my appreciation to the authors of such, but making any kind of comments on models which might be discouraging to modellers who are still developing their skills would be counter-productive I think. Cheers, AJ - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
On ven 7 décembre 2007, Hans Fugal wrote: The aircraft discussion has been interesting. One stumbling block I've come across when deciding which aircraft to download before is the quality guessing game. The web site lists the author's assessment, but I've found that to be less useful than it could be, because some authors say alpha when in fact the plane is much better than one which says production, esp in the case where a production plane has bitrotted. The subjective judgement by different people is not a good basis for making decisions. For me personally, the decision in question is not the download itself but the hassle of putting the downloaded file in the right place and firing up flightgear for a test flight. For others with slower internet the download may be the big thing. I'm not sure what the solution is, but here's a few random ideas. There could be one person that assigns the subjective quality tags, maybe out of a set, e.g. flies, 3d, realistic or 2d, crashes or whatever. Maybe a committee of 2 or 3, or 2 or 3 individuals that have agreed on what each tag means. Another possibility is some kind of user voting system, but I like that idea less and it probably means more work. Another idea is writing up some guidelines on how the authors should describe the plane in the status field, so that even though it's still a subjective description by many individuals, at least they are based on some common ground. Just my $0.02. You are right that is the problem. How to do with. It must be discussed here. When delivering a model, i usually say it is only 15% done. Why ? Making the 3D model shape is the easiest (5% of the work, more or less 24 hours of work, but very complicated shape) In spite of an acceptable eye candy: =animations done (which include the landing gear with compression extension) =a 3D cockpit, with some instruments =an FDM which seems to be right in order to play with it There is a lot of stuff to do: =the cockpit must completed (versus the A10, Alexy has spent so many time to do it) =the 3D model is missing a lot of details (maybe the user did notice it, but the author knows it) =An improvement of the texture, and probably some variants =the FDM which not right, close to the real one, must be done fully We could try to define some estimated values A, B, C, for each main components theses values could be defined within a range previously defined not by the author only, but by the community. I guess it could be useful for the devel-modeler, sometime the author is going on a lot of details, which could lead to the perfect is the enemy of the good. Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ Less i work, better i go - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
Nice idea! Why not add a system like: 5 stars for a very complete aircraft like the Senecca II or one for the not so goog like the fokker 70/100? So everyone can see, where is potential to develop?! Regards HHS --- Hans Fugal [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: The aircraft discussion has been interesting. One stumbling block I've come across when deciding which aircraft to download before is the quality guessing game. The web site lists the author's assessment, but I've found that to be less useful than it could be, because some authors say alpha when in fact the plane is much better than one which says production, esp in the case where a production plane has bitrotted. The subjective judgement by different people is not a good basis for making decisions. For me personally, the decision in question is not the download itself but the hassle of putting the downloaded file in the right place and firing up flightgear for a test flight. For others with slower internet the download may be the big thing. I'm not sure what the solution is, but here's a few random ideas. There could be one person that assigns the subjective quality tags, maybe out of a set, e.g. flies, 3d, realistic or 2d, crashes or whatever. Maybe a committee of 2 or 3, or 2 or 3 individuals that have agreed on what each tag means. Another possibility is some kind of user voting system, but I like that idea less and it probably means more work. Another idea is writing up some guidelines on how the authors should describe the plane in the status field, so that even though it's still a subjective description by many individuals, at least they are based on some common ground. Just my $0.02. -- Hans Fugal Fugal Computing - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel __ Ihr erstes Baby? Holen Sie sich Tipps von anderen Eltern. www.yahoo.de/clever - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
The aircraft discussion has been interesting. One stumbling block I've come across when deciding which aircraft to download before is the quality guessing game. The web site lists the author's assessment, but I've found that to be less useful than it could be, because some authors say alpha when in fact the plane is much better than one which says production, esp in the case where a production plane has bitrotted. The subjective judgement by different people is not a good basis for making decisions. For me personally, the decision in question is not the download itself but the hassle of putting the downloaded file in the right place and firing up flightgear for a test flight. For others with slower internet the download may be the big thing. I'm not sure what the solution is, but here's a few random ideas. There could be one person that assigns the subjective quality tags, maybe out of a set, e.g. flies, 3d, realistic or 2d, crashes or whatever. Maybe a committee of 2 or 3, or 2 or 3 individuals that have agreed on what each tag means. Another possibility is some kind of user voting system, but I like that idea less and it probably means more work. Another idea is writing up some guidelines on how the authors should describe the plane in the status field, so that even though it's still a subjective description by many individuals, at least they are based on some common ground. Just my $0.02. -- Hans Fugal Fugal Computing - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
Nice idea! Why not add a system like: 5 stars for a very complete aircraft like the Senecca II or one for the not so goog like the fokker 70/100? So everyone can see, where is potential to develop?! Regards HHS --- Hans Fugal [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: We could give a star for every single part of the development stadia. One start for the 3D Cockpit, one star for the Painting, One star for the 3D Model, One star for the flying performances etc. So if a plane has a 3D Cockpit and an 3d exterior model it gets 2 start by example. PS: If this is added, we may add also something wich let users rate the aircraft? _ http://www.live.com/?mkt=nl-nl Live.nl- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
Hi, --- gerard robin [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: On ven 7 décembre 2007, Heiko Schulz wrote: Yes we must not talk about artistic competences (here the msfs models are better :( ), only to answer the question: does the model simulate the real one ?which degree of simulation ? Right I think- eye candies are only one small part of being realistic, but if we want to be serious, we should attend this. Problem: how should we find out how realistic a aircraft is? Not all aircrafts here are based on save datas or have a real pilot as developer?! Regards HHS An answer only for fun: Yes the f16 is based on save data ( partly yes , however, it is ) Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ Less i work, better i go I meant that the datas are known and be sur to be the right one! ( and not just guessing!) Regards HHS Heute schon einen Blick in die Zukunft von E-Mails wagen? www.yahoo.de/mail - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
--- AJ MacLeod wrote: I agree that we need a better indication of state of completion for the models on the downloads page, but as far as I can see it will have to be a very basic overview. I'm not a fan of simplistic star ratings, but if the stars are for degree of completion and every star has a well-defined meaning, the idea might well have some merit (merely as a rough indication of what to expect). Quite a few of the aircraft currently use the following scale: - alpha - beta - early-production - production which I think is fairly easy to understand for users, and fit in with the basic software model of improvement over time. However, as others have pointed out, we need a better definition for what each of these mean. As it has worked quite well in the past for collating input, I suggest we set up a wiki page to get a feel for what people consider acceptable for each of the definitions. I'll set it up when I get the chance, unless someone else does so before me. To add to AJs point that we shouldn't be using this to critique model quality (as opposed to completeness of the aircraft), I'd suggest that a fully 3-D cockpit should not be a requirement for a production aircraft. I think that a 2.5D cockpit (i.e. a 2D panel pasted onto a surface) is acceptable for a production aircraft, and I'm not just saying that because I maintain some aircraft that use this feature ;) -Stuart __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
On ven 7 décembre 2007, Heiko Schulz wrote: Yes we must not talk about artistic competences (here the msfs models are better :( ), only to answer the question: does the model simulate the real one ?which degree of simulation ? Right I think- eye candies are only one small part of being realistic, but if we want to be serious, we should attend this. Problem: how should we find out how realistic a aircraft is? Not all aircrafts here are based on save datas or have a real pilot as developer?! Regards HHS An answer only for fun: Yes the f16 is based on save data ( partly yes , however, it is ) Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ Less i work, better i go - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
On ven 7 décembre 2007, AJ MacLeod wrote: On Friday 07 December 2007 14:40:34 gerard robin wrote: Making the 3D model shape is the easiest (5% of the work, more or less 24 hours of work, but very complicated shape) There is a lot of stuff to do: =the cockpit must completed (versus the A10, Alexy has spent so many time to do it) =the 3D model is missing a lot of details (maybe the user did notice it, but the author knows it) =An improvement of the texture, and probably some variants =the FDM which not right, close to the real one, must be done fully All very true - and this doesn't even really mention all the various systems that might be involved - electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic, radars, weapons etc. That is right, we could add the autopilot, i only wanted to define the minimum acceptable, we could find a lot of others features which are specific to the model. I agree that we need a better indication of state of completion for the models on the downloads page, but as far as I can see it will have to be a very basic overview. I'm not a fan of simplistic star ratings, but if the stars are for degree of completion and every star has a well-defined meaning, the idea might well have some merit (merely as a rough indication of what to expect). Stars for artistic competence and brilliance of execution should be avoided, Yes we must not talk about artistic competences (here the msfs models are better :( ), only to answer the question: does the model simulate the real one ?which degree of simulation ? I think. We have some stunning models and I personally make a point of mentioning my appreciation to the authors of such, but making any kind of comments on models which might be discouraging to modellers who are still developing their skills would be counter-productive I think. Cheers, AJ Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ Less i work, better i go - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
Yes we must not talk about artistic competences (here the msfs models are better :( ), only to answer the question: does the model simulate the real one ?which degree of simulation ? Right I think- eye candies are only one small part of being realistic, but if we want to be serious, we should attend this. Problem: how should we find out how realistic a aircraft is? Not all aircrafts here are based on save datas or have a real pilot as developer?! Regards HHS __ Ihre erste Baustelle? Wissenswertes für Bastler und Hobby Handwerker. www.yahoo.de/clever - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
Err ... there's a 2D exterior? And a 3D cockpit is not necessarily better than a 2D. 2D is less demanding on frame rate, and can be just as effective as a 3D cockpit. And some of those are by no means brilliant. Horses for courses. Our most detailed ac need high end computers to run on, with good graphics cards. Not everyone has such a machine, and we have to have regard for them. Vivian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gijs de Rooy Sent: 07 December 2007 14:30 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality Nice idea! Why not add a system like: 5 stars for a very complete aircraft like the Senecca II or one for the not so goog like the fokker 70/100? So everyone can see, where is potential to develop?! Regards HHS --- Hans Fugal [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: We could give a star for every single part of the development stadia. One start for the 3D Cockpit, one star for the Painting, One star for the 3D Model, One star for the flying performances etc. So if a plane has a 3D Cockpit and an 3d exterior model it gets 2 start by example. PS: If this is added, we may add also something wich let users rate the aircraft? _ Windows Live Messenger het beste van de toekomst Download NU! Windows Live Messenger! http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=nl-nlsource= joinmsncom/messenger - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
Gerard robin wrote Sent: 07 December 2007 15:44 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality On ven 7 décembre 2007, Heiko Schulz wrote: Yes we must not talk about artistic competences (here the msfs models are better :( ), only to answer the question: does the model simulate the real one ?which degree of simulation ? Right I think- eye candies are only one small part of being realistic, but if we want to be serious, we should attend this. Problem: how should we find out how realistic a aircraft is? Not all aircrafts here are based on save datas or have a real pilot as developer?! Regards HHS An answer only for fun: Yes the f16 is based on save data ( partly yes , however, it is ) Sorry, run that hog by me again - what is save data? Vivian - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
On ven 7 décembre 2007, Vivian Meazza wrote: Gerard robin wrote Sent: 07 December 2007 15:44 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality On ven 7 décembre 2007, Heiko Schulz wrote: Yes we must not talk about artistic competences (here the msfs models are better :( ), only to answer the question: does the model simulate the real one ?which degree of simulation ? Right I think- eye candies are only one small part of being realistic, but if we want to be serious, we should attend this. Problem: how should we find out how realistic a aircraft is? Not all aircrafts here are based on save datas or have a real pilot as developer?! Regards HHS An answer only for fun: Yes the f16 is based on save data ( partly yes , however, it is ) Sorry, run that hog by me again - what is save data? Vivian I understood it to be result of measurements from the real Aircraft, tunnel wind data , others useful information about the flight specifications Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ Less i work, better i go - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
Am Freitag 07 Dezember 2007 schrieb LeeE: ...[end user rating scheme is bad idea]... I propose that we identify the different areas of development i.e. 3d model, FDM, Cockpit, flight control systems etc. and then just state the level of development for each of those areas. While this is probably the most neutral scheme a few questions arise to me. If its not coming from the users, who is going to do the evaluation? According to which criteria/set of standards? The result might also be too complex for new users (for which this rating system was intended in the first place), so we also need some defined procedure (e.g. weighted scores of the categories) to cut it down to a few easily understood levels (like we have now in the hangar, i.e. alpha, early production, production, maybe not that developer centric). I favour school grades over stars because you get a decimal for finer distinction. Anyway I like the idea of having 'Stiftung Warentest' (THE german consumer goods evaluator) for aircraft. Thomas Note: haven't read the whole thread so bear with me if I'm just restating other's ideas. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
On Dec 7, 2007 2:43 PM, LeeE wrote: I'm not sure that a rating scheme, where the ratings are given by end users, is a good idea. I'm not sure the value of debating and discussing and designing a system that probably no one will step forward to build. But that said, if you allow multiple user ratings with attached comments, I would think that would be useful. Sure there's always going to be a chance that a bad apple gets in there and claims the world will end if anyone downloads this aircraft, but that is set again the 99% of thoughtful reviews and comments and experiences. I don't think it's possible to have a completely objective system since we are often don't have good truth references for historic or exotic or new or classified aircraft. Is there a way we could abuse the flightgear forum for this purpose? We could start a forum thread for each aircraft and link to that thread from the downloads page. It would be kind of clunky and a bear to maintain, so we'd have to find someone who is pretty passionate about rating aircraft and tracking user comments. But something like this could be interesting ... authors could post update notices for their aircraft, and all this information would be consolodated in one place. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
On Friday 07 December 2007 20:25, Curtis Olson wrote: On Dec 7, 2007 2:20 PM, AnMaster wrote: Just an idea: A rating system for users. (Please rate this aircraft after you tried it for a bit!) However we can't know how well the users know how it should be. Maybe we should ask them if they are pilots/if the flew that aircraft in reality. Some sort of rating/comments system is a good idea, but someone is going to have to step forward to design and build such a system (or find one that does just what we want) and hopefully tie it in with the aircraft downloads page. Curt. I'm not sure that a rating scheme, where the ratings are given by end users, is a good idea. It would be too easy for small-minded people who simply don't 'like' a particular aircraft for whatever personal reasons or because they wish to promote a different aircraft, or even because they don't like a particular person associated with an aircraft, to give that aircraft a bad rating when it might not be deserved. Sorry, but people _are_ that small-minded and it _will_ happen. I propose that we identify the different areas of development i.e. 3d model, FDM, Cockpit, flight control systems etc. and then just state the level of development for each of those areas. LeeE - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote: Hi there, On Dec 8, 2007, at 5:01 AM, SydSandy wrote: Quite a few of the aircraft currently use the following scale: - alpha - beta - early-production - production (snip) I agree with most of the discussion , but the above scale means nothing to me , it doesn't give ME any indication of what I'm downloading it only means something from an authors point of view , IMHO. Im trying to think as a user :) I do agree that we need something more informative . What about the following perspectives? 1. Flight model stability (at least flyable without easily noticeable weird behaviors) That would cause a lot of less experienced users to think ground loops with tail dragers = weird behaviour. And even for experienced users, some plane had weird behaviour in reality. 2. 3D model completeness (at least shape is acceptable, textured, and gears are animated) That should be easier to check. 3. Instruments completeness (it doesn't have to be 3D but should be working properly, most of instruments should be implemented) 4. Interior completeness (at least cockpit room, throttle, canopy are implemented) We still need to know how to rate aircraft objectively using these perspectives. Considering authenticity is a big problem to me. for 3D model, Instruments and interior, some people can rate aircraft, but for Flight model, I have no idea how to rate especially historical aircraft since there exists few data or aircraft itself. Indeed. However some issues are clear. Autopilot not working well (like altitude hold on 787) are very likely a problem in aircraft model for example and not a quirk with the real aircraft. /AnMaster -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHWbA8WmK6ng/aMNkRChwDAKCNTvL7NGDNdJocKT7yKp//v7Rn6ACeMmHp qTlg/6z2Y9WdZMMUFO7rFwQ= =b8+r -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SydSandy wrote: On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:39:53 + (GMT) Stuart Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- AJ MacLeod wrote: I agree that we need a better indication of state of completion for the models on the downloads page, but as far as I can see it will have to be a very basic overview. I'm not a fan of simplistic star ratings, but if the stars are for degree of completion and every star has a well-defined meaning, the idea might well have some merit (merely as a rough indication of what to expect). Quite a few of the aircraft currently use the following scale: - alpha - beta - early-production - production which I think is fairly easy to understand for users, and fit in with the basic software model of improvement over time. However, as others have pointed out, we need a better definition for what each of these mean. I agree with most of the discussion , but the above scale means nothing to me , it doesn't give ME any indication of what I'm downloading it only means something from an authors point of view , IMHO. Im trying to think as a user :) I do agree that we need something more informative . Cheers Just an idea: A rating system for users. (Please rate this aircraft after you tried it for a bit!) However we can't know how well the users know how it should be. Maybe we should ask them if they are pilots/if the flew that aircraft in reality. /AnMaster -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHWar6WmK6ng/aMNkRCqYvAKC0Zz7y8a1d1srYxjNv467+71XQGQCfYPEI y6XVV2YmVInOqZUejhVWvrI= =tN/0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:39:53 + (GMT) Stuart Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- AJ MacLeod wrote: I agree that we need a better indication of state of completion for the models on the downloads page, but as far as I can see it will have to be a very basic overview. I'm not a fan of simplistic star ratings, but if the stars are for degree of completion and every star has a well-defined meaning, the idea might well have some merit (merely as a rough indication of what to expect). Quite a few of the aircraft currently use the following scale: - alpha - beta - early-production - production which I think is fairly easy to understand for users, and fit in with the basic software model of improvement over time. However, as others have pointed out, we need a better definition for what each of these mean. I agree with most of the discussion , but the above scale means nothing to me , it doesn't give ME any indication of what I'm downloading it only means something from an authors point of view , IMHO. Im trying to think as a user :) I do agree that we need something more informative . Cheers -- SydSandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Curtis Olson wrote: On Dec 7, 2007 2:20 PM, AnMaster wrote: Just an idea: A rating system for users. (Please rate this aircraft after you tried it for a bit!) However we can't know how well the users know how it should be. Maybe we should ask them if they are pilots/if the flew that aircraft in reality. Some sort of rating/comments system is a good idea, but someone is going to have to step forward to design and build such a system (or find one that does just what we want) and hopefully tie it in with the aircraft downloads page. Curt. As I guess PHP would be prefered I sadly lack the experience to code such a system. /AnMaster -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHWa5LWmK6ng/aMNkRCrpeAJ9GmtmClJ2EQ3g5SRWPkiEezTyEmACeKsj1 l+gOmFKXx9YJlLVSnNyhlmU= =eOcy -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft Downloading and Quality
On Dec 7, 2007 2:20 PM, AnMaster wrote: Just an idea: A rating system for users. (Please rate this aircraft after you tried it for a bit!) However we can't know how well the users know how it should be. Maybe we should ask them if they are pilots/if the flew that aircraft in reality. Some sort of rating/comments system is a good idea, but someone is going to have to step forward to design and build such a system (or find one that does just what we want) and hopefully tie it in with the aircraft downloads page. Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
