Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Durk Talsma wrote: I wasn't able to jump in yesterday, but I've been following the aircraft selection disscussion closely. Below is a first attempt at compiling a new list based on the various suggestion made by everybody, and weighted by me based on my general impression of consensus. 737-300 - 787 I think Jon Berndt suggested keeping the 737, but a few people suggested replacing it by the 787, which seems to be our most complete jetliner. I like to follow that suggestion. A-10 As far as I can see, nobody suggested replacing this aircraft. So I guess we keep it. Yes, it is very detailed and nice aircraft IMO. bf109 - A6M2 (Zero) Suggested by Melchior, for ease of operations use. I think this is a good point. The release will be the first FlightGear hands-on experience for many people and we want to make sure that that first experience is as positive as possible by providing aircraft that have reasonably easy handling characteristics. Not including the bf109 for that reason is by no means a quality judgment of the aircraft itself. bo105 c172 c172p Everybody seems to agree we keep these ones. c310- SenecaII c310u3a - Beaver I haven't been able to check whether the c310 and c310u3a are really two separate aircraft, or just two different directories with shared components. Anyhow, we unanimously agree that the c310 should be replaced by the Seneca. The suggested replacement above seems to satisfy a few additional requests to have the Beaver included as well. Sounds good Citation-Bravo - B1900D This seems a reasonable replacement, in particular since the author of the Citation has indicated preferring that is is not part of the base aircraft selection. One minor concern is the ease-of-use issue. IIRC, the B1900D is fired up in cold configuration, and has quite a complicated start-up procedure (things may have changed since I last checked). Complex procedures like these may intimidate first time users. Yes the startup of B19000D is complex but the aircraft got a tutorial for it under the help menu. f16 - Lightning Melchior reported that the f16 is broken. I haven't been able to test recently, but seem to recall similar problems about a year ago. Jon Berndt reported finding a possible cause, so chances are the reported problems might get fixed in time. Still, I would like to replace the F16 for other reasons: We need at least an AAR ready aircraft in the base package, and a carrier ready aircraft (these are two very prominent new AI features in this release that we want to showcase). So, how about replacing the f16 with the Ligntning (for AAR scenarios)? I agree. j3cub A few people have a suggested dropping the cub, but given its various qualities, I'd like to keep it. Keep. Hunter - SeaHawk As a few people suggested, we probably need a carrier ready aircraft, and the seahawk is advertised by the wiki carrier HOWTO as the easiest to master (and I can confirm that its doable. :-) ). Well I think the A-6E is easier to land on carrier, but maybe I just have more experience with it. p51d- () We already have one other WWII fighter. Do we really want to have two, or do we want to have some other category of aircraft represented? pa28-161- pa24-250 A few people have suggested replacing the pa28-161 with the pa24-250. I haven't tried any of those recently, but would be open to the suggestion. Rascal - Bochian (or another glider) Many people have suggested dropping the Rascal, for being too specific, and suggested we add a glider. Indeed we want a glider to show off areotow, and I think bocian is a good glider, however I have not flown the other gliders enough to comment on what glider is best. However: the bocian is rather large (14 MB), very detailed textures. T38 - Concorde () Even though the T38 is probably a category of its own, my general impression is that the broader class this aircraft belongs to (let's say: small high-powered jet powered and highy manouvreable) is a bit overrepresented (with the A10, [f16/lightning], and [Hunter/SeaHawk] being present. Considering the size of Concorde (18MB) I'm not sure this is a good idea. Gerard Robin suggested adding the concorde, and there are some aspects of this proposal I like, asit is an altogether different category. However, when trying the condorde yesterday, I saw some performance issues (need to check again), and also found the 3D cockpit instruments to be a bit cartoonesque. This is probably a good candidate for future inclusion, but not quite there yet. ufo Keep as a general exploration tool. Its fun as such. I think everybody agrees. :-) wrightFlyer1903 - Osprey/
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
Durk Talsma wrote: Sent: 06 December 2007 08:31 To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary I wasn't able to jump in yesterday, but I've been following the aircraft selection disscussion closely. Below is a first attempt at compiling a new list based on the various suggestion made by everybody, and weighted by me based on my general impression of consensus. 737-300 - 787 I think Jon Berndt suggested keeping the 737, but a few people suggested replacing it by the 787, which seems to be our most complete jetliner. I like to follow that suggestion. A-10 As far as I can see, nobody suggested replacing this aircraft. So I guess we keep it. bf109 - A6M2 (Zero) Suggested by Melchior, for ease of operations use. I think this is a good point. The release will be the first FlightGear hands-on experience for many people and we want to make sure that that first experience is as positive as possible by providing aircraft that have reasonably easy handling characteristics. Not including the bf109 for that reason is by no means a quality judgment of the aircraft itself. bo105 c172 c172p Everybody seems to agree we keep these ones. c310 - SenecaII c310u3a - Beaver I haven't been able to check whether the c310 and c310u3a are really two separate aircraft, or just two different directories with shared components. Anyhow, we unanimously agree that the c310 should be replaced by the Seneca. The suggested replacement above seems to satisfy a few additional requests to have the Beaver included as well. Citation-Bravo - B1900D This seems a reasonable replacement, in particular since the author of the Citation has indicated preferring that is is not part of the base aircraft selection. One minor concern is the ease-of-use issue. IIRC, the B1900D is fired up in cold configuration, and has quite a complicated start-up procedure (things may have changed since I last checked). Complex procedures like these may intimidate first time users. f16 - Lightning Melchior reported that the f16 is broken. I haven't been able to test recently, but seem to recall similar problems about a year ago. Jon Berndt reported finding a possible cause, so chances are the reported problems might get fixed in time. Still, I would like to replace the F16 for other reasons: We need at least an AAR ready aircraft in the base package, and a carrier ready aircraft (these are two very prominent new AI features in this release that we want to showcase). So, how about replacing the f16 with the Ligntning (for AAR scenarios)? j3cub A few people have a suggested dropping the cub, but given its various qualities, I'd like to keep it. Hunter - SeaHawk As a few people suggested, we probably need a carrier ready aircraft, and the seahawk is advertised by the wiki carrier HOWTO as the easiest to master (and I can confirm that its doable. :-) ). p51d - () We already have one other WWII fighter. Do we really want to have two, or do we want to have some other category of aircraft represented? pa28-161 - pa24-250 A few people have suggested replacing the pa28-161 with the pa24-250. I haven't tried any of those recently, but would be open to the suggestion. Rascal - Bochian (or another glider) Many people have suggested dropping the Rascal, for being too specific, and suggested we add a glider. T38 - Concorde () Even though the T38 is probably a category of its own, my general impression is that the broader class this aircraft belongs to (let's say: small high-powered jet powered and highy manouvreable) is a bit overrepresented (with the A10, [f16/lightning], and [Hunter/SeaHawk] being present. Gerard Robin suggested adding the concorde, and there are some aspects of this proposal I like, asit is an altogether different category. However, when trying the condorde yesterday, I saw some performance issues (need to check again), and also found the 3D cockpit instruments to be a bit cartoonesque. This is probably a good candidate for future inclusion, but not quite there yet. ufo Keep as a general exploration tool. Its fun as such. I think everybody agrees. :-) wrightFlyer1903 - Osprey/ DragonFly/maybe another historic aircraft. Most people suggested dropping the wright flyer. A few people suggested adding an ultralight. it would be nice to have a historic aircraft (as in a really old one). During the version number discussion, somebody suggested doing named releases. We could do this implicitly, by changing our choice of historic aircraft from release to release. So 0.9.10 would have
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:57:04 +0100 AnMaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Citation-Bravo - B1900D This seems a reasonable replacement, in particular since the author of the Citation has indicated preferring that is is not part of the base aircraft selection. One minor concern is the ease-of-use issue. IIRC, the B1900D is fired up in cold configuration, and has quite a complicated start-up procedure (things may have changed since I last checked). Complex procedures like these may intimidate first time users. Yes the startup of B19000D is complex but the aircraft got a tutorial for it under the help menu. Ive recently added an autostart menu entry to all my aircraft for those who dont want to go through the startup procedure ... the Beaver should be ready by tomorrow night ... Cheers -- SydSandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
On Thursday 06 December 2007 08:30:42 Durk Talsma wrote: Most people suggested dropping the wright flyer. A few people suggested adding an ultralight. it would be nice to have a historic aircraft (as in a really old one). During the version number discussion, somebody suggested doing named releases. We could do this implicitly, by changing our choice of historic aircraft from release to release. So 0.9.10 would have been release wright in retrospect, and 0.9.11/V1.0 could become release bleriot. :-) I think that was a very accurate summary of feelings so far, and agree with pretty much all of the suggested changes. I also quite like the idea above, that we could cycle through the better historic models in each release... I'd like to highlight the Camel of course, but it really requires OSG to work properly, so maybe next release instead ;-) One point which keeps cropping up is size. While I fully agree that it's important to keep the base package to a reasonable size so that people aren't put off downloading FG, I also think that there's perhaps even a danger in not showing off FG quite enough. Without wanting to get into tiresome my sim's better than yours comparisons, and definitely not wishing to follow suit like sheep, it's certainly valid to consider the download size of the FS-X and X-Plane demos... Perhaps we just need lots of very nice screenshots in our release publicity to encourage people to explore the aircraft for download instead though ;-) Cheers, AJ - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
In general I agree with Durk. The only issue is that if we drop the Citation we would end-up with no bussiness jet class aircraft, which are high performance machines (compared to props), easier to fly than an airliner (787), and with its own limitations (as compared to fighters - F16). Also a Very Light Jet would be popular nowadays, but I guess there is still no simulation model available yet. Fabian On 12/6/07, Durk Talsma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wasn't able to jump in yesterday, but I've been following the aircraft selection disscussion closely. Below is a first attempt at compiling a new list based on the various suggestion made by everybody, and weighted by me based on my general impression of consensus. 737-300 - 787 I think Jon Berndt suggested keeping the 737, but a few people suggested replacing it by the 787, which seems to be our most complete jetliner. I like to follow that suggestion. A-10 As far as I can see, nobody suggested replacing this aircraft. So I guess we keep it. bf109 - A6M2 (Zero) Suggested by Melchior, for ease of operations use. I think this is a good point. The release will be the first FlightGear hands-on experience for many people and we want to make sure that that first experience is as positive as possible by providing aircraft that have reasonably easy handling characteristics. Not including the bf109 for that reason is by no means a quality judgment of the aircraft itself. bo105 c172 c172p Everybody seems to agree we keep these ones. c310 - SenecaII c310u3a - Beaver I haven't been able to check whether the c310 and c310u3a are really two separate aircraft, or just two different directories with shared components. Anyhow, we unanimously agree that the c310 should be replaced by the Seneca. The suggested replacement above seems to satisfy a few additional requests to have the Beaver included as well. Citation-Bravo - B1900D This seems a reasonable replacement, in particular since the author of the Citation has indicated preferring that is is not part of the base aircraft selection. One minor concern is the ease-of-use issue. IIRC, the B1900D is fired up in cold configuration, and has quite a complicated start-up procedure (things may have changed since I last checked). Complex procedures like these may intimidate first time users. f16 - Lightning Melchior reported that the f16 is broken. I haven't been able to test recently, but seem to recall similar problems about a year ago. Jon Berndt reported finding a possible cause, so chances are the reported problems might get fixed in time. Still, I would like to replace the F16 for other reasons: We need at least an AAR ready aircraft in the base package, and a carrier ready aircraft (these are two very prominent new AI features in this release that we want to showcase). So, how about replacing the f16 with the Ligntning (for AAR scenarios)? j3cub A few people have a suggested dropping the cub, but given its various qualities, I'd like to keep it. Hunter - SeaHawk As a few people suggested, we probably need a carrier ready aircraft, and the seahawk is advertised by the wiki carrier HOWTO as the easiest to master (and I can confirm that its doable. :-) ). p51d - () We already have one other WWII fighter. Do we really want to have two, or do we want to have some other category of aircraft represented? pa28-161 - pa24-250 A few people have suggested replacing the pa28-161 with the pa24-250. I haven't tried any of those recently, but would be open to the suggestion. Rascal - Bochian (or another glider) Many people have suggested dropping the Rascal, for being too specific, and suggested we add a glider. T38 - Concorde () Even though the T38 is probably a category of its own, my general impression is that the broader class this aircraft belongs to (let's say: small high-powered jet powered and highy manouvreable) is a bit overrepresented (with the A10, [f16/lightning], and [Hunter/SeaHawk] being present. Gerard Robin suggested adding the concorde, and there are some aspects of this proposal I like, asit is an altogether different category. However, when trying the condorde yesterday, I saw some performance issues (need to check again), and also found the 3D cockpit instruments to be a bit cartoonesque. This is probably a good candidate for future inclusion, but not quite there yet. ufo Keep as a general exploration tool. Its fun as such. I think everybody agrees. :-) wrightFlyer1903 - Osprey/ DragonFly/maybe another historic aircraft. Most people suggested dropping the wright flyer. A few people suggested adding an ultralight. it would be nice to have a historic aircraft (as in a really old one). During the version number discussion, somebody suggested doing named releases. We could do this implicitly, by changing our choice of historic aircraft from release to release. So 0.9.10 would
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
AnMaster schrieb: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Durk Talsma wrote: I wasn't able to jump in yesterday, but I've been following the aircraft selection disscussion closely. Below is a first attempt at compiling a new list based on the various suggestion made by everybody, and weighted by me based on my general impression of consensus. 737-300 - 787 I think Jon Berndt suggested keeping the 737, but a few people suggested replacing it by the 787, which seems to be our most complete jetliner. I like to follow that suggestion. As I would say, most developers and active users of FlightGear are more interested in smaller aircraft or helicopters than in airliners, at least if we count the new developed aircrafts. At least for Germany, this might be vice versa. If I check the interests of known flightsimmers (fellows, friends and neighbours) most of them like sim-flying airliners - only a few very seriously online. So we should be very careful what to present to new users. And although i really dislike the 2D panel of the 737 (HHS is developing a 3D panel, but this is an option for the next release) *the very nice 787 has one problem here which makes it UNUSABLE: *Activating the autopilot ie. with altitude hold it runs into very serious oscillations around the pitch axis - you really get sea-sick. I am not sure where I read that another user had the same problems (Forum? list?). It seems to be a problem of faster running PCs. It would be a good idea if as many people as possible would test the 787 before choosing it. If it is only a local problem here, ok then we should take the 787. A pity, as the 737 does not show the capabilities of the actual FlightGear version, but then the 737 is the only airline we could choose :-( Georg EDDW - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 I tested this and found it to be true, the 787's autopilot is broken. However the 737's cockpit is uggly. Hm can either of those be fixed before release? /AnMaster Georg Vollnhals wrote: As I would say, most developers and active users of FlightGear are more interested in smaller aircraft or helicopters than in airliners, at least if we count the new developed aircrafts. At least for Germany, this might be vice versa. If I check the interests of known flightsimmers (fellows, friends and neighbours) most of them like sim-flying airliners - only a few very seriously online. So we should be very careful what to present to new users. And although i really dislike the 2D panel of the 737 (HHS is developing a 3D panel, but this is an option for the next release) *the very nice 787 has one problem here which makes it UNUSABLE: *Activating the autopilot ie. with altitude hold it runs into very serious oscillations around the pitch axis - you really get sea-sick. I am not sure where I read that another user had the same problems (Forum? list?). It seems to be a problem of faster running PCs. It would be a good idea if as many people as possible would test the 787 before choosing it. If it is only a local problem here, ok then we should take the 787. A pity, as the 737 does not show the capabilities of the actual FlightGear version, but then the 737 is the only airline we could choose :-( -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHV9x2WmK6ng/aMNkRCnXTAKCYUgjmg1aTF1VHmnUC03oRYV8JmwCfT9r3 GcXCGSMepYwYhC+UXYk6ED4= =oFwk -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
On jeu 6 décembre 2007, Durk Talsma wrote: I wasn't able to jump in yesterday, but I've been following the aircraft selection disscussion closely. Below is a first attempt at compiling a new list based on the various suggestion made by everybody, and weighted by me based on my general impression of consensus. 737-300 - 787 I think Jon Berndt suggested keeping the 737, but a few people suggested replacing it by the 787, which seems to be our most complete jetliner. I like to follow that suggestion. A-10 As far as I can see, nobody suggested replacing this aircraft. So I guess we keep it. bf109 - A6M2 (Zero) Suggested by Melchior, for ease of operations use. I think this is a good point. The release will be the first FlightGear hands-on experience for many people and we want to make sure that that first experience is as positive as possible by providing aircraft that have reasonably easy handling characteristics. Not including the bf109 for that reason is by no means a quality judgment of the aircraft itself. bo105 c172 c172p Everybody seems to agree we keep these ones. c310 - SenecaII c310u3a - Beaver I haven't been able to check whether the c310 and c310u3a are really two separate aircraft, or just two different directories with shared components. Anyhow, we unanimously agree that the c310 should be replaced by the Seneca. The suggested replacement above seems to satisfy a few additional requests to have the Beaver included as well. Citation-Bravo - B1900D This seems a reasonable replacement, in particular since the author of the Citation has indicated preferring that is is not part of the base aircraft selection. One minor concern is the ease-of-use issue. IIRC, the B1900D is fired up in cold configuration, and has quite a complicated start-up procedure (things may have changed since I last checked). Complex procedures like these may intimidate first time users. f16 - Lightning Melchior reported that the f16 is broken. I haven't been able to test recently, but seem to recall similar problems about a year ago. Jon Berndt reported finding a possible cause, so chances are the reported problems might get fixed in time. Still, I would like to replace the F16 for other reasons: We need at least an AAR ready aircraft in the base package, and a carrier ready aircraft (these are two very prominent new AI features in this release that we want to showcase). So, how about replacing the f16 with the Ligntning (for AAR scenarios)? j3cub A few people have a suggested dropping the cub, but given its various qualities, I'd like to keep it. Hunter - SeaHawk As a few people suggested, we probably need a carrier ready aircraft, and the seahawk is advertised by the wiki carrier HOWTO as the easiest to master (and I can confirm that its doable. :-) ). p51d - () We already have one other WWII fighter. Do we really want to have two, or do we want to have some other category of aircraft represented? pa28-161 - pa24-250 A few people have suggested replacing the pa28-161 with the pa24-250. I haven't tried any of those recently, but would be open to the suggestion. Rascal - Bochian (or another glider) Many people have suggested dropping the Rascal, for being too specific, and suggested we add a glider. T38 - Concorde () Even though the T38 is probably a category of its own, my general impression is that the broader class this aircraft belongs to (let's say: small high-powered jet powered and highy manouvreable) is a bit overrepresented (with the A10, [f16/lightning], and [Hunter/SeaHawk] being present. Gerard Robin suggested adding the concorde, and there are some aspects of this proposal I like, asit is an altogether different category. However, when trying the condorde yesterday, I saw some performance issues (need to check again), and also found the 3D cockpit instruments to be a bit cartoonesque. This is probably a good candidate for future inclusion, but not quite there yet. ufo Keep as a general exploration tool. Its fun as such. I think everybody agrees. :-) wrightFlyer1903 - Osprey/ DragonFly/maybe another historic aircraft. Most people suggested dropping the wright flyer. A few people suggested adding an ultralight. it would be nice to have a historic aircraft (as in a really old one). During the version number discussion, somebody suggested doing named releases. We could do this implicitly, by changing our choice of historic aircraft from release to release. So 0.9.10 would have been release wright in retrospect, and 0.9.11/V1.0 could become release bleriot. :-) Okay, the update has become quite long, but I wanted to make sure to capture all my comments in one mail. I'd like to emphasize once more that dropping an aircraft from the list should *not* be
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
* gerard robin -- Thursday 06 December 2007: I have red that the choice in between a model A and an other model B is to choose the easier to fly. Do you mean that FlightGear is a game (versus some other FS non free). I am feeling that we are loosing the base of the values we had when FlightGear came up, a SIMULATOR nothing else. One of the usual simplifications. Don't know who you refer to, but I for one didn't demand that they be easy to fly. I voiced my doubts about the bf109 because it's too difficult to fly, which is something entirely different. With the narrow gear it very easily flips to the side and lands on the wing. The majority of users will not recognize this as a wonderful simulation of a hard to fly (in real life!) aircraft, but as an annoying bug in the simulation. Maybe not the best advertisement for fgfs. But maybe I'm too cautious. Or, for the future, the authors will develop every aircraft with a FDM c172 like. Yeah, some polemic is always nice. I do that myself, so I can't complain. :-} I was always for realism, the more the better. But I was never for throwing the most difficult aircraft at newbies. They should download the more challenging aircraft from the download site, where, ideally, one should be able to read about important characteristics. Not that every user of the distribution package necessarily is a newbie. Might be experienced pilots, too, of course. m. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
--- gerard robin wrote: Nobody (but me) has talked about the Concorde which is highly elaborated why ? Probably because few people on the -dev list take the time to fully get to grips with it. As you say - it is a very complicated aircraft. Unfortunately that makes it difficult to get to grips with, and quite specialized. Another reason to suggest that it shouldn't be included is that it is quite large (IIRC 18MB?). Yes the bf109 is difficult to take off , but because FG is not a game the author was right to do it. Our best choice should be to show that FG is a simulator (not a game), and some real aircraft which were difficult to fly, are difficult to fly in FG. From looking at the FG Forums, a lot of new users to FG don't have joysticks and pedals, which really are required if you're going to successfully fly the bf109 and the other big taildraggers. Or, for the future, the authors will develop every aircraft with a FDM c172 like. Why does everyone always gang up on the poor c172 ? :( -Stuart ___ Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/ - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
Hi, we have the 777-200 ( not in CVS but GPL!) We have Fred's A320, which is nice to fly and we have the b1900d, which is really good and an airliner. But it should be no problem, to fix the 787-autopilot: there are some people quite good in tuning the autopilot- that's something should be done in a short time! Regards HHS --- JOSHUA WILSON [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Georg Vollnhals wrote: As I would say, most developers and active users of FlightGear are more interested in smaller aircraft or helicopters than in airliners, at least if we count the new developed aircrafts. At least for Germany, this might be vice versa. If I check the interests of known flightsimmers (fellows, friends and neighbours) most of them like sim-flying airliners - only a few very seriously online. So we should be very careful what to present to new users. And although i really dislike the 2D panel of the 737 (HHS is developing a 3D panel, but this is an option for the next release) *the very nice 787 has one problem here which makes it UNUSABLE: *Activating the autopilot ie. with altitude hold it runs into very serious oscillations around the pitch axis - you really get sea-sick. I am not sure where I read that another user had the same problems (Forum? list?). It seems to be a problem of faster running PCs. It would be a good idea if as many people as possible would test the 787 before choosing it. If it is only a local problem here, ok then we should take the 787. A pity, as the 737 does not show the capabilities of the actual FlightGear version, but then the 737 is the only airline we could choose :-( Georg EDDW I have run into the same problem with pitch oscillations, when my airspeed is excessive. I suggest keeping below 250 knots indicated airspeed when below 10,000 feet msl. http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-117-FAR.shtml Josh - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel Heute schon einen Blick in die Zukunft von E-Mails wagen? Versuchen Sie´s mit dem neuen Yahoo! Mail. www.yahoo.de/mail - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
Georg Vollnhals wrote: As I would say, most developers and active users of FlightGear are more interested in smaller aircraft or helicopters than in airliners, at least if we count the new developed aircrafts. At least for Germany, this might be vice versa. If I check the interests of known flightsimmers (fellows, friends and neighbours) most of them like sim-flying airliners - only a few very seriously online. So we should be very careful what to present to new users. And although i really dislike the 2D panel of the 737 (HHS is developing a 3D panel, but this is an option for the next release) *the very nice 787 has one problem here which makes it UNUSABLE: *Activating the autopilot ie. with altitude hold it runs into very serious oscillations around the pitch axis - you really get sea-sick. I am not sure where I read that another user had the same problems (Forum? list?). It seems to be a problem of faster running PCs. It would be a good idea if as many people as possible would test the 787 before choosing it. If it is only a local problem here, ok then we should take the 787. A pity, as the 737 does not show the capabilities of the actual FlightGear version, but then the 737 is the only airline we could choose :-( Georg EDDW I have run into the same problem with pitch oscillations, when my airspeed is excessive. I suggest keeping below 250 knots indicated airspeed when below 10,000 feet msl. http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-117-FAR.shtml Josh - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
On jeu 6 décembre 2007, Stuart Buchanan wrote: --- gerard robin wrote: Nobody (but me) has talked about the Concorde which is highly elaborated why ? Probably because few people on the -dev list take the time to fully get to grips with it. As you say - it is a very complicated aircraft. Unfortunately that makes it difficult to get to grips with, and quite specialized. Another reason to suggest that it shouldn't be included is that it is quite large (IIRC 18MB?). Yes the bf109 is difficult to take off , but because FG is not a game the author was right to do it. Our best choice should be to show that FG is a simulator (not a game), and some real aircraft which were difficult to fly, are difficult to fly in FG. From looking at the FG Forums, a lot of new users to FG don't have joysticks and pedals, which really are required if you're going to successfully fly the bf109 and the other big taildraggers. Or, for the future, the authors will develop every aircraft with a FDM c172 like. Why does everyone always gang up on the poor c172 ? :( -Stuart Don't make me wrong :) To me c172 become the best representative. Learning to pilot on c172 (in reality or in FG) is a pleasure We could have a dream: every aircraft being so easy to fly. FlightGear must have within the base package every difficulties from the easier to the most difficult. We must tell to the newbie a list of Aircraft with degree of difficulties , i guess he must start with the c172. In reality does some pilot student start to learn to fly on an f18 or a mirage ? i don't think so. FG is the same, and the talk with bf109 demonstrate that nice taildragger cannot be flown by anybody who is not experienced, which does not mean it must be OUT. The high level of FG need these Aircrafts difficult to fly but real. OR like i said before we are on the same level of any others FS non free , with an advantage to them they they have an eye candy with scenery. We don't have it. Regards -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ Less i work, better i go - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
I agree, I think a business jet (or very light jet but we have none to my knowledge) is an important class, at least compared to adding a second twin prop. On Dec 6, 2007 2:14 AM, Fabian Grodek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In general I agree with Durk. The only issue is that if we drop the Citation we would end-up with no bussiness jet class aircraft, which are high performance machines (compared to props), easier to fly than an airliner (787), and with its own limitations (as compared to fighters - F16). Also a Very Light Jet would be popular nowadays, but I guess there is still no simulation model available yet. Fabian On 12/6/07, Durk Talsma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wasn't able to jump in yesterday, but I've been following the aircraft selection disscussion closely. Below is a first attempt at compiling a new list based on the various suggestion made by everybody, and weighted by me based on my general impression of consensus. 737-300 - 787 I think Jon Berndt suggested keeping the 737, but a few people suggested replacing it by the 787, which seems to be our most complete jetliner. I like to follow that suggestion. A-10 As far as I can see, nobody suggested replacing this aircraft. So I guess we keep it. bf109 - A6M2 (Zero) Suggested by Melchior, for ease of operations use. I think this is a good point. The release will be the first FlightGear hands-on experience for many people and we want to make sure that that first experience is as positive as possible by providing aircraft that have reasonably easy handling characteristics. Not including the bf109 for that reason is by no means a quality judgment of the aircraft itself. bo105 c172 c172p Everybody seems to agree we keep these ones. c310 - SenecaII c310u3a - Beaver I haven't been able to check whether the c310 and c310u3a are really two separate aircraft, or just two different directories with shared components. Anyhow, we unanimously agree that the c310 should be replaced by the Seneca. The suggested replacement above seems to satisfy a few additional requests to have the Beaver included as well. Citation-Bravo - B1900D This seems a reasonable replacement, in particular since the author of the Citation has indicated preferring that is is not part of the base aircraft selection. One minor concern is the ease-of-use issue. IIRC, the B1900D is fired up in cold configuration, and has quite a complicated start-up procedure (things may have changed since I last checked). Complex procedures like these may intimidate first time users. f16 - Lightning Melchior reported that the f16 is broken. I haven't been able to test recently, but seem to recall similar problems about a year ago. Jon Berndt reported finding a possible cause, so chances are the reported problems might get fixed in time. Still, I would like to replace the F16 for other reasons: We need at least an AAR ready aircraft in the base package, and a carrier ready aircraft (these are two very prominent new AI features in this release that we want to showcase). So, how about replacing the f16 with the Ligntning (for AAR scenarios)? j3cub A few people have a suggested dropping the cub, but given its various qualities, I'd like to keep it. Hunter - SeaHawk As a few people suggested, we probably need a carrier ready aircraft, and the seahawk is advertised by the wiki carrier HOWTO as the easiest to master (and I can confirm that its doable. :-) ). p51d - () We already have one other WWII fighter. Do we really want to have two, or do we want to have some other category of aircraft represented? pa28-161 - pa24-250 A few people have suggested replacing the pa28-161 with the pa24-250. I haven't tried any of those recently, but would be open to the suggestion. Rascal - Bochian (or another glider) Many people have suggested dropping the Rascal, for being too specific, and suggested we add a glider. T38 - Concorde () Even though the T38 is probably a category of its own, my general impression is that the broader class this aircraft belongs to (let's say: small high-powered jet powered and highy manouvreable) is a bit overrepresented (with the A10, [f16/lightning], and [Hunter/SeaHawk] being present. Gerard Robin suggested adding the concorde, and there are some aspects of this proposal I like, asit is an altogether different category. However, when trying the condorde yesterday, I saw some performance issues (need to check again), and also found the 3D cockpit instruments to be a bit cartoonesque. This is probably a good candidate for future inclusion, but not quite there yet. ufo Keep as a general exploration tool. Its fun as such. I think everybody agrees. :-) wrightFlyer1903 - Osprey/ DragonFly/maybe another historic aircraft. Most people suggested
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Stuart Buchanan wrote: --- gerard robin wrote: Nobody (but me) has talked about the Concorde which is highly elaborated why ? Probably because few people on the -dev list take the time to fully get to grips with it. As you say - it is a very complicated aircraft. Unfortunately that makes it difficult to get to grips with, and quite specialized. I wrote some guides for some common operations with the autopilot in concorde: http://rage.kuonet.org/~anmaster/flightgear/guides/concorde/ Hope that helps. Another reason to suggest that it shouldn't be included is that it is quite large (IIRC 18MB?). Yes the bf109 is difficult to take off , but because FG is not a game the author was right to do it. Our best choice should be to show that FG is a simulator (not a game), and some real aircraft which were difficult to fly, are difficult to fly in FG. From looking at the FG Forums, a lot of new users to FG don't have joysticks and pedals, which really are required if you're going to successfully fly the bf109 and the other big taildraggers. And for the Concorde due to stupid key mapping. Ctrl-M is mapped to menu, prevents rudder (enter) as Ctrl-M is the code for Enter as well. Or, for the future, the authors will develop every aircraft with a FDM c172 like. Why does everyone always gang up on the poor c172 ? :( -Stuart -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHWCGjWmK6ng/aMNkRChoZAJ46eHL0WYXoXCEhWZL7+vIZhSdOsACeJep/ pRRlbenb8I2CGkItI3W43pA= =dLl9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 AJ MacLeod schrieb: One point which keeps cropping up is size. While I fully agree that it's important to keep the base package to a reasonable size so that people aren't put off downloading FG, I also think that there's perhaps even a danger in not showing off FG quite enough. Without wanting to get into tiresome my sim's better than yours comparisons, and definitely not wishing to follow suit like sheep, it's certainly valid to consider the download size of the FS-X and X-Plane demos... As we've got enough planes now we could offer a starter set in the base package and offer additional, themes aircraft pacages (+ the possibility to download individual planes) We could have a figher package, a comercial jet package, etc. pp. This gives us the best of both worlds: a slim base package as well as packs with selections of great planes (there even a 40+ MB AN2 would have a place as it's only aditional). CU, Christian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHWDOMoWM1JLkHou0RCCZCAJ4gWe78ZLX9AIGPI2OUjaRZz+PMqwCePhnc /bLm3akmTj1r/EBwZeIOtEI= =uTqP -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
On 12/06/2007 04:22 AM, AJ MacLeod wrote: One point which keeps cropping up is size. We may be able to have this cake and eat it to; see below. While I fully agree that it's important to keep the base package to a reasonable size so that people aren't put off downloading FG, I also think that there's perhaps even a danger in not showing off FG quite enough. Without wanting to get into tiresome my sim's better than yours comparisons, and definitely not wishing to follow suit like sheep, it's certainly valid to consider the download size of the FS-X and X-Plane demos... Perhaps we just need lots of very nice screenshots in our release publicity to encourage people to explore the aircraft for download instead though ;-) It might help to have some sort of download-on-demand feature. In particular, fgfs --show-aircraft would show *all* known aircraft, with perhaps some indication of whether they had already been downloaded or not. The first use of a not-yet-downloaded aircraft would cause it to be automagically downloaded, assuming a network connection is available. Then the base package can be quite small, containing just the name, thumbnail, and short description for each aircraft, plus the full model for a verrry small number of aircraft. If you want to go the whole nine yards, you could a tool analogous to Debian deselect which shows the menu of what is available and what is selected, and allows downloading of new things and/or purging of old things. This is a pretty serious user-interface issue, because it is completely unreasonable to expect users to download new aircraft when they don't know what's available. Showing them a menu of what's available makes a huge difference. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
On Thursday 06 December 2007 18:27:06 John Denker wrote: It might help to have some sort of download-on-demand feature. Then the base package can be quite small, containing just the name, thumbnail, and short description for each aircraft, plus the full model for a verrry small number of aircraft. Actually, I've often thought that this would be a nice feature. Not one that belongs in fgfs though (IMO), but in fgrun. I don't think that having --show-aircraft display non-installed aircraft would be useful, for example. This is a pretty serious user-interface issue, because it is completely unreasonable to expect users to download new aircraft when they don't know what's available. Showing them a menu of what's available makes a huge difference. I think we already do this far better than either MSFS or X-Plane, since (largely due to the free/OSS nature of FG and most of our models) practically all available aircraft for FGFS are available directly from the downloads page (complete with thumbnail!) But I would definitely love to see an aircraft download install feature in fgrun... Cheers, AJ - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Sounds like a great idea. I would suggest using libcurl for the download (if you don't have a better idea). Some key features needed for making this good: * Update list of available aircrafts (when new are added to website). * Find updates for already installed aircrafts (bug fixes and such) * Ability to both install and remove aircrafts in a clean way. * Show images of not yet downloaded aircrafts. * Be able to only show aircrafts that work with the installed fgfs (for example: osg/plib, version...) However I find it hard to belive we could get this done in time for the release. A simpler version on the other hand could probably be done in time, but then if we later decide to add the rest we would have to consider backward compatibility of the system. Regards, Arvid Norlander John Denker wrote: It might help to have some sort of download-on-demand feature. In particular, fgfs --show-aircraft would show *all* known aircraft, with perhaps some indication of whether they had already been downloaded or not. The first use of a not-yet-downloaded aircraft would cause it to be automagically downloaded, assuming a network connection is available. Then the base package can be quite small, containing just the name, thumbnail, and short description for each aircraft, plus the full model for a verrry small number of aircraft. If you want to go the whole nine yards, you could a tool analogous to Debian deselect which shows the menu of what is available and what is selected, and allows downloading of new things and/or purging of old things. This is a pretty serious user-interface issue, because it is completely unreasonable to expect users to download new aircraft when they don't know what's available. Showing them a menu of what's available makes a huge difference. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHWEf8WmK6ng/aMNkRClm1AKChVWeqyMHiYdr2703+oxYSXr99EwCgnvFk f7kNQsKPHogGh2O6Erm0Bq0= =9BXB -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
On Thursday 06 December 2007 19:05:35 AnMaster wrote: However I find it hard to belive we could get this done in time for the release. I don't think anyone was suggesting (or would suggest) that goal! For one thing, nobody has actually said they would write the code, and such a feature would almost certainly require changes in infrastructure in the website and extensive testing... Cheers, AJ - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
On Dec 6, 2007 1:04 PM, AJ MacLeod wrote: Actually, I've often thought that this would be a nice feature. Not one that belongs in fgfs though (IMO), but in fgrun. I don't think that having --show-aircraft display non-installed aircraft would be useful, for example. Supposedly, OSG has a feature (or add on?) that will transparently download a model and it's subparts from a remote web site if it can't be found locally. I don't know if that's been incorporated into OSG, but at one point Don Burns said he was polishing it up. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
Hi there, On 12/06/2007 04:22 AM, AJ MacLeod wrote: It might help to have some sort of download-on-demand feature. I think this is a good idea. I once thought about introducing such feature to the GUI launcher on Mac OS, but it was not that easy since there's no unifi ed aircraft package description that contains compatible fgfs version, image t humbnail, and description unless I make such list myself. If there exist unified aircraft package description (maybe in xml, or in rss c apable format), GUI launcher or fgfs itself can show and download available ai rcraft by referring to package descriptions from some designated site(s). The items needed for the description can be: - aircraft name - aircraft version, or last updated date - aircraft status (experiment, unstable, stable... whatever in the same fashio n) - compatible fgfs version - thumbnail image URL - package URL - list of package contents (for uninstalling, this can be embedded in a packag e itself) Though GUI launcher might be able to access the CVS to show and get the latest aircraft info, it is not compatible to aircraft that are not in CVS. so having a unified aircraft package and/or package description is better, I think. Best, Tat Tat [EMAIL PROTECTED] - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 AJ MacLeod wrote: On Thursday 06 December 2007 19:05:35 AnMaster wrote: However I find it hard to belive we could get this done in time for the release. I don't think anyone was suggesting (or would suggest) that goal! For one thing, nobody has actually said they would write the code, and such a feature would almost certainly require changes in infrastructure in the website and extensive testing... I could code it during xmas, however it would be in the language I know best: C# for mono using GTK#. I would not be able to integrate the feature with either fgrun or fgfs directly. It would be a stand alone program. If you wanted: a fgfs protocol (using nasal maybe) + C# daemon. This however I expect a lot of people would object to. So I guess it is no point in doing it. Regards AnMaster -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHWE9LWmK6ng/aMNkRCpXMAJ9J5i+d6Q38cFdUNs1+kBSGF78J9QCfaR4I wJ+E7Ufm1LgG5sp5+uIO6j8= =xijX -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Curtis Olson wrote: On Dec 6, 2007 1:04 PM, AJ MacLeod wrote: Actually, I've often thought that this would be a nice feature. Not one that belongs in fgfs though (IMO), but in fgrun. I don't think that having --show-aircraft display non-installed aircraft would be useful, for example. Supposedly, OSG has a feature (or add on?) that will transparently download a model and it's subparts from a remote web site if it can't be found locally. I don't know if that's been incorporated into OSG, but at one point Don Burns said he was polishing it up. I object to transparent download behind your back. As AJ suggested on IRC: AJ call it background sneaky transfer system /AnMaster -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHWE/AWmK6ng/aMNkRCi7lAJ9tl9uIf+Ii56yrk1UfyDsroL0yWACglOmV WLWCnOmQUB4ngN7y+8u5MPg= =WFy4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection summary
On Dec 6, 2007 1:38 PM, AnMaster wrote: I object to transparent download behind your back. As AJ suggested on IRC: AJ call it background sneaky transfer system Honestly, this is a weak point. An application has a lot of power and can do a lot of things over the network, to the local file system, to your personal files, etc. An application can do these things sneakily or in an open and straightforward manner. How about a windows application that goes and diddles with your registry or .dll's without telling you? How about an applications that goes and writes dot files in your home directory without saying anything? Many people are doing essentially a low-tech version of this same remote/ondemand download idea for scenery using terrasync. I've never heard of anyone refer to terrasync as doing something sneaky behind your back. How do you guys get through life without running a web browser which oh my downloads things that aren't already in your cache! Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ http://baron.flightgear.org/%7Ecurt/ 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 selection summary
On Thursday 06 December 2007 19:19:55 Curtis Olson wrote: Supposedly, OSG has a feature (or add on?) that will transparently download a model and it's subparts from a remote web site if it can't be found locally. I don't know if that's been incorporated into OSG, but at one point Don Burns said he was polishing it up. It does sound interesting (I'm imagining seeing custom aircraft paint schemes/liveries or even models on MP), but I know I'd personally be very wary of such a feature. I'm much happier with the idea of deliberate choice by the user to download and install something clearly defined, with a clearly advertised file size etc. It's something that I can't see myself ever using anyway (CVS is fine by me) but it's definitely something that would really help out some of our decidedly non computer-literate users. 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 selection summary
AnMaster, I could code it during xmas, however it would be in the language I know best : C# for mono using GTK#. I would not be able to integrate the feature with either fgrun or fgfs direc tly. It would be a stand alone program. If you wanted: a fgfs protocol (using nas al maybe) + C# daemon. It doesn't have to be embedded in fgfs or fgrun, but can be a separated progra m like yours or GUI launcher on each platform at this moment as long as the pack age description is properly defined. So I guess what we need to discuss is not the program itself but the format of description. I'd like to help on this. I also want to make some sample description and samp le program of this feature on Mac OS X if I have some spare time at around the end of thi s year. Best, Tat Tat [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 selection summary
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote: AnMaster, I could code it during xmas, however it would be in the language I know best : C# for mono using GTK#. I would not be able to integrate the feature with either fgrun or fgfs direc tly. It would be a stand alone program. If you wanted: a fgfs protocol (using nas al maybe) + C# daemon. It doesn't have to be embedded in fgfs or fgrun, but can be a separated progra m like yours or GUI launcher on each platform at this moment as long as the pack age description is properly defined. So I guess what we need to discuss is not the program itself but the format of description. I'd like to help on this. I also want to make some sample description and samp le program of this feature on Mac OS X if I have some spare time at around the end of thi s year. Client requesting an xml file from server seems the best way to go. A draft of format: aircrafts aircraft name short=A-10Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II/name download href=path/to/archive / thumbnail href=path/to/tumbnail / works-with version0.9.11/version version0.9.12/version /works-with description Blah blah blah. Blah blah!br / blah blah. /description /aircraft aircraft name short=LightningEnglish Electric Lightning/name download href=path/to/archive / thumbnail href=path/to/tumbnail / works-with version0.9.10/version version0.9.11/version version0.9.12/version /works-with description Something here. Whatever. blah. /description /aircraft /aircrafts Description could maybe allow some limited html (br /, h1/2/3..., a and maybe a few more)? Version information may need a better format. Maybe blacklisting versions. Maybe osg/plib info. Maybe other stuff too. Regards, Arvid Norlander -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHWFn9WmK6ng/aMNkRCgdjAKCzFfKXa9XJUFBYM/OYb6L3nTNq4gCfVLaR p7kFfQ4gLXy2wZ2YfC6S/J8= =OF0X -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 selection summary
On Thursday 06 December 2007 20:05:47 Curtis Olson wrote: Honestly, this is a weak point. An application has a lot of power and can do a lot of things over the network, to the local file system, to your personal files, etc. Which is why I suggest being cautious about monitoring the capabilities that FG has to ensure that it isn't too easily used in a malicious manner. I wish people would stop pasting single sentences out of IRC conversations into mailing lists - they're always taken out of context and end up saying something slightly different to what they did originally :-\ The BSTS comment was simply a passing, and not particularly good play on MS' BITS in response to someone else's comment about such a feature being MS-like. It wasn't a great rallying cry in the war against file transfer :-) Many people are doing essentially a low-tech version of this same remote/ondemand download idea for scenery using terrasync. I've never heard of anyone refer to terrasync as doing something sneaky behind your back. That's because it isn't. I don't use it myself - I choose the scenery sections I want and download them manually. But terrasync is completely optional and not built into fgfs - just like fgrun, which is where I was suggesting this kind of capability would be best situated. How do you guys get through life without running a web browser which oh my downloads things that aren't already in your cache! By being reasonably careful about which websites I visit, which web browser I use and by disabling javascript,flash et al by default (the noscript extension to firefox makes this practical to assign on a site-by-site basis.) Nobody is suggesting that downloading stuff is too dangerous to be considered - indeed I was the first to voice my support for John's idea! My opinion is just that users should have the best possible idea of exactly what, when and how much they are downloading. 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 selection summary
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 After some discussion on IRC (AJ pointed out that plural of aircraft is aircraft, and andy noted that PropertyList may be a more fg-style top node), I suggest that either change the top node to something else, or call it PropertyList and go the whole way and make it simgear style PropertyList and change subnodes to be fg compatible too. Regards, Arvid Norlander AnMaster wrote: Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote: AnMaster, I could code it during xmas, however it would be in the language I know best : C# for mono using GTK#. I would not be able to integrate the feature with either fgrun or fgfs direc tly. It would be a stand alone program. If you wanted: a fgfs protocol (using nas al maybe) + C# daemon. It doesn't have to be embedded in fgfs or fgrun, but can be a separated progra m like yours or GUI launcher on each platform at this moment as long as the pack age description is properly defined. So I guess what we need to discuss is not the program itself but the format of description. I'd like to help on this. I also want to make some sample description and samp le program of this feature on Mac OS X if I have some spare time at around the end of thi s year. Client requesting an xml file from server seems the best way to go. A draft of format: aircrafts aircraft name short=A-10Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II/name download href=path/to/archive / thumbnail href=path/to/tumbnail / works-with version0.9.11/version version0.9.12/version /works-with description Blah blah blah. Blah blah!br / blah blah. /description /aircraft aircraft name short=LightningEnglish Electric Lightning/name download href=path/to/archive / thumbnail href=path/to/tumbnail / works-with version0.9.10/version version0.9.11/version version0.9.12/version /works-with description Something here. Whatever. blah. /description /aircraft /aircrafts Description could maybe allow some limited html (br /, h1/2/3..., a and maybe a few more)? Version information may need a better format. Maybe blacklisting versions. Maybe osg/plib info. Maybe other stuff too. Regards, Arvid Norlander - - 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 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHWF2SWmK6ng/aMNkRCvmvAJkB2GAXcuxamTLFN+DbSt2xhDdA3ACeIsLe 7kH1h/8H3Q4j7ToPZHyijlo= =ATPq -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 selection summary
On Thursday 06 December 2007 19:49, Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote: I could code it during xmas, however it would be in the language I know best : C# : for mono using GTK#. I would not be able to integrate the feature with either fgrun or fgfs directly. It would be a stand alone program. If you wanted: a fgfs protocol (using nasal maybe) + C# daemon. It doesn't have to be embedded in fgfs or fgrun, but can be a separated program like yours or GUI launcher on each platform at this moment as long as the pack age description is properly defined. So I guess what we need to discuss is not the program itself but the format of description. I'd like to help on this. I also want to make some sample description and samp le program of this feature on Mac OS X if I have some spare time at around the end of thi s year. Best, Tat I'd like to suggest at this point is that if anyone has an idea for a new FG add-on feature they should think about making it a 'distributed' prog that doesn't necessarily have to run on the same system as FG. Now that multi-core cpus are mainstream we have to accept that FG's current architecture is obsolete. No intention to upset anyone but that's the facts. 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
