On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Peter Brown <peter@...:
> Worrying about GS service volume seems off-scale
> unimportant relative to other issues. For starters,
> Stansted has a reversible ILS. The code to handle
> reversible ILSs in FG has been broken for years, and
> actually got worse recently.
> The code to make it possible to fly at airports with
> reversible ILSs has been available for a long time.
> From a user's point of view, and don't this wrong for I'm not sure of the
> long term goals, but if success includes attracting users and retaining them
> then the little details such as this will enhance that aspect more than some
> other things. Realistic flight performance, including operations within the
> airport radius are typically high in value to a user.
> This isn't to take the side of someone complaining about not getting the
> glideslope at full volume until 7 miles, he should be well on his way with a
> standard decent rate out of the turn point. I think the 10 mile minimum
> should work fine, until it gets enhanced to extend to a "trickle out" point,
> which is the ideal. (And often 20 miles)
> Is there a published list somewhere of the major issues that the developers
> & contributors are striving to correct, enhance, add, etc?
In this particular case we are building a twin turbo prop simulator (Beech
1900) with a full cockpit, dual controls, and wrap around visual system
(based largely on FlightGear.) Glide slope range is something the customer
commented on, so that pushes it up my priority queue a bit. There are times
when it makes sense to debate the customer's perceptions (gently show them
why they are incorrect) but in this case I think 10nm is borderline,
although upon further discussion, there were other aspects of what was going
on that were indeed more important. So no, this isn't a drop dead issue,
but at some point if we boost the default service volumes up by a few
percent hopefully people won't get too bent out of shape?
Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/