Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 1.99.5 RC1 feedback summary

[Syd <syd...@te...>]

Durk Talsma wrote:
> Hi Gerard,
>
> On Wednesday 10 December 2008 13:08:57 gerard robin wrote:
>   
>> Is it only philosophy, from me  ?
>> Am i alone to think like that ?
>> Or, is there here, now, more "gamer" and less "serious" persons. ?
>>
>>     
>
> I'm puzzled...
>
> As far as I can tell there has never been any question regaring our striving 
> for realism. Personally, I don't see how the quest for a selection of our most 
> advanced aircraft would be indicative of moving FlightGear toward a more game 
> oriented audience. If you think it does, then please explain how.
>
> What is at stake here is that we do want to achieve a cross section of 
> aircraft that are a good representation of FlightGear's capabilities and at 
> the same time leave a positive impression. This includes a number of beginner 
> level aircraft, along with a number of more advanced types. Obviously, the 
> ones that are easy in FlightGear should also be easy in real life. Within 
> these confinements, I don't think we ever sacrificed realism. You might 
> remember that last year, at the very last minute, we decided not to include 
> the Bleriot aircraft, due to it's unrealistic FDM, and replaced it with a very 
> hard to fly Sopwith Camel. 
>
> Suppose what would happen if we were to include aircraft that are hard to fly. 
> New users would get frustrated by FlightGear, conclude that the program 
> "sucks", and don't give it a second chance. However, with a few aircraft in 
> the mix that are easy to fly, one would get a positive experience and give it 
> a second try. Ultimately, these people may become permanent users, and even 
> contributers. .
>
>
> Cheers,
> Durk
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
> The future of the web can't happen without you.  Join us at MIX09 to help
> pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> Fli...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
>
>   
I dont quite understand this argument over the Concorde ... I dont care 
much for 2d instruments pasted on a 3d panel , so I dont fly it.Not a 
very logical reason , I know , but the ongoing discussion doesn't make 
any more sense , since most new users start downloading cvs aircraft 
once they get bored with the included ones....
So as a vote of support , I'll be content with whatever Durk decides , 
since he IS the one putting this together .
Cheers :)