Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5: Release Candidate

On lundi 01 décembre 2008, Detlef Faber wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 30.11.2008, 23:23 +0100 schrieb gerard robin:
> > On dimanche 30 novembre 2008, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> > > Durk Talsma wrote:
> > > > I just placed the sources and base package for the pending FlightGear
> > > > 1.9 release on my webserver:
> > > >
> > > > http://durktalsmal.xs4all.nl/SimGear-1.99.5.tar.gz
> > > > http://durktalsmal.xs4all.nl/FlightGear-1.99.5.tar.gz
> > > > http://durktalsmal.xs4all.nl/FlightGear-data-1.99.5.tar.bz2
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > > Please note that I made an aircraft selection that was based on
> > > > various suggestions made on the list, but that -as far as I'm
> > > > concerned - this selection is not yet final. I've been trying to cut
> > > > down the total number of aircraft in the base package, yet preserve
> > > > the variety in feature richness that we originally had. Based on
> > > > this, I came to the following list:
> > > >
> > > > 777ER           : Fairly Complete Airliner
> > > > B1900d          : Very complete Commuter jet, Twin Turbo Prop.
> > > > bocian          : Our most complete SailPlane
> > > > c17p            : Light Single GA; our default aircraft
> > > > dhc2            : Versatile Tail Dagger, with Aerotowing Capability
> > > > Concorde        : Supersonic Transport
> > > > Dragonfly       : Nice ultralight.
> > > > F14             : Omnipowerful Jet Fighter; has so many features, it
> > > > is very well capable of representing the category "Fighter Jet"
> > > > CitationX       : Small Commuter Jet
> > > > SopwithCamel    : Historic Aircraft
> > > > UFO             : Classified
> > > > Zeppelin NT     : Airship
> > > > Zero            : WW-II Fighter
> > >
> > > The lack of a helicopter seems like an omission.
> > >
> > > I note that the base package size above is 200MB.
> > >
> > > I did a quick look at the (uncompressed) size in KB of
> > > each of these aircraft, excluding the CVS directories.
> > >
> > > 5564    777-200
> > > 6208    b1900d
> > > 13528   bocian
> > > 17708   c172p
> > > 6752    dhc2
> > > 20656   Concorde
> > > 876     Dragonfly
> > > 29428   f-14b
> > > 4360    CitationX
> > > 14464   sopwithCamel
> > > 232     ufo
> > > 2148    ZLT-NT
> > > 3968    A6M2
> > >
> > > As can be seen, there is a huge variation, and some pretty huge planes.
> > > I would suggest: - Dropping Concorde It is very nice, but also very
> > > advanced for new users. - Replace the Sopwith Camel with the Stampe.
> > > The Stampe is much easier to fly, and saves us 6.5MB - Look at reducing
> > > the size of the c172p. The Liveries directory is 9MB, and each
> > > tailplane texture is currently 1MB. - Adding the bo105. This means we
> > > have a helicopter, and the aircraft is only 3MB in size.
> > >
> > > -Stuart
> >
> > The size and the easy to fly is a question  :)
> >
> > Since the models  are  more and more accurate, since FlightGear is more
> > and more realistic, don't we must answer to the quality first,  before to
> > answer to some "game" specifications.
> > For instance, yes, the Stampe is easy to fly but not realistic regarding 
> > the FDM.
> > Don't forget  we don't make a Game.
>
> So what is it you are critizising? What needs to be improved to get
> realistic behaviour? Making Aircraft is really hard if the only feedback
> you get is "not realistic".
>
> Don't get me wrong, I think an Aircraft developer should be highly
> interested in criticism and feedback to improve an Aircraft and fellow
> developers shouldn't hesitate to note what they think is inappropriate.
> At least it leads to discussion.
>
>
> Greetings
>
> > Cheers

This could be the content of an other topic, and my answer won't be 
constructive:
Because I don't know YASim , and what can be done with it.
I don't criticism, only a fact, => the feeling that we had on board of a 
stampe ( but, the open cockpit which cannot be reproduced  :) ), was an 
aircraft difficult to pilot, more than a c172 or at that time a JoDel ( the 
ancestor of the Robin).
It was not easy.

To propose it in a base package because it is easy to fly, is not a good idea.
If we are looking for a model easy to fly, we must at least, take an aircraft 
which is/was easy to fly in the real life.

Regards


-- 
Gérard
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/

J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. 
Voltaire