Re: [Opengc-devel] Linux Hardware

[John W. <ca...@mm...>]

>
> The lack of "amateur" use of FG is most likely due to the high barrier of
> entry (you _must_ know what you're doing) and the lack of cockpit oriented
> third party infrastructure.
>
I like your use of the word "amateur" I was struggling to find the right
expression. It's sorta a chicken and egg thing, provide the support and
you'll have an audience that will justify the effort to produce the support

> For instance, there is a LOT of cockpit support software available for
> MSFS that's made by Project Magenta.  It's pretty high dollar software
> too.  However, it sells itself because of how easy it is to configure and
> hook up to MSFS via network, etc.  There are other packages out there that
> offer similar features for free as well.  OpenGC provides a small subset
> as you know.
>
I talked over a year ago with the Magenta folks and all it left in my mouth
was a bad taste, what an arrogant bunch of SOBs and their stuff is not all
THAT great. I've got stuff running derived from OpenGC which is a full 747
flightdeck with a functional FMC and better,as attested to by a few airline
pilot types I've worked with. But (here's the catch) since Damion went off
on a different direction with the OpenGC project it's become incompatible
and I just don't have the time, talent  or resources to set up a website and
CVS server or try to sync up with X-Plane or FSxxx. It runs under Linux and
networks with FG, and is just as easy to set up as FSUIPC and has a lot more
potential and will remain free under the GPL license..

> For FlightGear to really take off as a core tool for the home cockpit
> builder, it has to be more widely supported by the user community.
>
So true. the FG crowd is rather an ecclectic bunch (based mostly on the
email one sees) and just no way of knowing who else is out there or were
their interests lie. ATM the task(s) de jour seems to be building airplane
models and cultural features. And it is becoming a little top-heavy. IMHO it
needs a got technical thrashing by a couple of heavy-duty gearheads to
improve performance and supportability.

I think one of the big barriers is Linux itself. While the installation and
support has improved dramatically over the past few years it still takes a
little work to get it installed and running when things don't go as
expected. Again MS has a lock on windows and can dictate how things work, so
installation can be guaranteed while Linux has to be a little more
"democratic" (small d, no reference to politics) and that can lead to a few
mis-steps on occasion.

Regards
John W.