Re: [Opengc-devel] Linux Hardware

[Gene B. <ge...@de...>]

> > 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
>
Bingo. :)

> 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..
>
While you might have some really cool stuff running, if no one has heard
that it's been done then how will they know they've got a choice? :)

> 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.
>
The problem with FG right now is that they're concentrating on the "sexy"
features and letting the back end slide a bit.  Curt is helping cure this
a bit with the recent aircraft tree reorg.

g.