![]() ![]() ![]() My fictional review would reveal chiefly my ignorance about WW-II warbirds - and probably my unwillingness to read the flight manual of a Spitfire. Yet the problem is not with the plane, the problem are in fact my expectations. I (the fictional I) am disappointed because my expectations aren't met. Not knowing that an agile plane has to be fidgety, one would come to expect an easy ride. Not knowing about ballistics and bullets falling in Earth's gravity, one would come to expect to hit whatever is in the crosshairs no matter the distance. the fictional user) had the wrong expectations - not knowing about torque and p-factor, one would expect a different take-off. Yet the review would be completely misleading. So - what I would write would be all true. (.) The gun is complete crap - I was firing at a target right in the crosshairs, and missed anyway (.) it's far too fidgety in the air.' In my (fictional) review, I write 'The plane is impossible to take off, it drags to the side when accelerating - I had to cheat and start in-air to fly at all. the T4T Spitfire (which I personally find a very impressive FDM). Let me for a moment slip into a different fictional persona, reviewing e.g. Re: How to write a FlightGear review (brainstorming) ?. come to think of it screenshots on the front page are outdated). ![]() (Is the features page up to date? Any journalist reviewing FG would look at that. aircraft devs getting stranded by lack of engine development. What are a checklist of positives to include? Are there examples of issues in closed source projects that an open source engine would avoid? e.g. this link from an article in the tour section).įG reviews have to contain some reference of FG's opensource nature and what it means. I think the promotional value of specifying unique aspects should not be underestimated for a sim that people currently invested in other sims can try out easily.Ī list of links to evidence that give measures of the quality of JSBSim as well as accuracy of some of FG FDMs might help, as they can be dropped in reviews to great persuasive effect (e.g. Examples of aviation situations where FGs strengths at simulating come to the fore would help reviewers. Some points a review could potentially talk about - stimulus material for reviewers:Ī check list of things that FG does well, and that other sims do not have or are not likely to have might help with write ups? (for instance the weather simulation, and the way it interacts with terrain to both affect flight and provde visual cues). Those reviews mentioned there predate the reset/re-init effort by several years, and while the original reviews may not be very objective, they did have /some/ merits - and it seems that some core developers do care about such reviews and are sufficiently motivated by reviews highlighting certain issues - for instance, Stuart used to be an avid participant in "usability" discussions, including reviews of FlightGear highlighting the lack of usability - equally, the Qt5 effort could be said to be aimed at making FG more accessbile.Īnd the FlightGear multicore debate is seeing some attention via HLA - so people certainly care, it's just the timeframe that makes things appear very unresponsive The whole reset/re-init work seems to be largely based on FlightGear reviews stating how the sim is unable to save/load/resume flights and change aircraft without restarting the whole simulator: FlightGear Sessions#Problem so that they can help guide the future of the program. Provide a simple framework/guideline for people wanting to review FlightGear, to make sure that reviews are kept constructive and helpful, i.e. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |