From: henri o. <hoh...@gm...> - 2010-12-01 13:38:13
|
Le mercredi 01 décembre 2010 14:06:11, tho...@jy... a écrit : > > One example that strikes me is the c172p, though I'm biased as one of the > > maintainers of the aircraft, and it is rated accurately according to > > your criteria :) > > Compared with, say, the A-10, the F-14b or the Tu-154b (which is not in > the GIT repository) - how would you rate the c172p cockpit? Would you say > that it has the same quality, would you say that it is better or worse? > Hi, I am not fully aware with such talk, so my answer could be out of your target. A cockpit must be close to the real one, instrument position, and functionality ( i have read from Mr Martin Spott and Mr Vivian Meazza a similar opinion ) . The instruments must be readable, nothing else, no additional , suppose to be, eye candy artifact which would be unacceptable on a real aircraft. Yes, we can accept flat instrument. We can notice some instruments on some models which are crazy and unrealistic, yes eye candy, but unusable. And i am not talking about the stupid indications which could be given. Does Flightgear is a simulator or a Van Gogh painting ? The c172p is to me the first , since it it is validated by real pilot , and probably the Tu-154b. May be the A-10 and F-14b are right, may be not , as long a pilot did not say yes it is OK. Please don't fall in the MSFS policy, when the eye candy is the main approach. I hope i didn't hurt anybody with my answer, in case of, i apologize. Thanks for your work. Alva |