As I'm just a stupid user, I'm happy to see such an improvement like the rating system.
In the past days I went though the list of those aircraft in the FGFS-repo which has been rated already. Not ready yet, I can see some things now.
I noticed that some aircraft are higher rated as they should be. Probably due to the system and the guidelines not being really sufficient and clear enough.
Most of the times it seems to work, but I found until now three aircraft, which should have less stars.
One is the WWII Fighter Martin Baker MB5. With a bit use of Google you can find a lot of informations about the MB5.
Exterior model rating with 4 stars and cockpit rating with 2 stars seems right to me.
But systems rating seems wrong. According to this, the fuel tanks has the wrong positions and volumes. But it has a simple startup procedure.
I'm not sure about giving 0 or 1 star here?
The fdm has a rating of 3 stars- so I would expect a "
FDM tuned for rate of climb and cruise Pilot Operating Handbook (PoH) performance numbers"
What I found says that the FlightGear's version is much, much too powerful!
I got more than 5000-8000fpm as climbrate- even all wrong fuel tanks filled up and at hot weather at high altitudes and at a speed between 150-200ktn.
But Maximum rate at 7000ft should be around 4000fpm.
Top speed at 20.000ft should be 460mph or 403ktn True AirSpeed.
With the FGFS-version i got more than 460ktn easily!
So I would give just 1 star for the fdm.
At the end Stars I would give:
1
2
1
4
8 stars= alpha
Sources:
http://johnmarlinsmb5replica.mysite.com/index_1.htmlhttp://airplanesandrockets.com/airplanes/martin-baker-mb5-1971-aam.htmhttp://www.martin-baker.com/Sub-Navigation/History/Martn-Baker-MB5.aspxhttp://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?automodule=downloads&showfile=14943The other is the SenecaII.
Here as well Google is my friend, and the climb rates and speeds mentioned seems to match pretty well. 5 stars from me as well.
Systems seems to be 99% complete, but when entering the aircraft I hear a sound: the gyro. On a cold and dark aircraft I woulden't expect it. The cockpit seems to be one of the finest in FlightGear- just two dummy instruments on the right side of the panel, otherwise all instruments, knobs, switches, avionics available and fully working.
5 and 4 Stars are o.k. (not entirely sure on the systems rating due to the gyro sound)
But now we come to the exterior model. Not very attracting.
The whole fuselage is edgy, while the original has smooth outlines. Window glases are hardly noticeable. At least the shape shows more or less that it is a Piper Seneca. Just a very simple livery.
But the system doesn't say anything about how "accuracy" is defined. And not about the quality of the 3d-models. So I tend to give 3 stars as well, but with some headaches.
So I would give:
5
4 or 5?
4
3 (here I'm uncertain)
16-17stars = production
Sources:
http://www.fargojet.com/school/view_aircraft.php?id=9The other one is the R44. Here luckily I have access to the PoH and in the past I had some discussions about the R22/R44 with their pilots.
We begin with the exterior. From the side it does look like the real one. But from the front the profil looks like blown up. Was here a wide angle photo used as reference? And there is a second upper window on the pilot side- it shouldn't be there.
Again the same question: how is accuracy defined? With this it doesn't look accurate enough to me for 4 stars.
But the main rotor and tail rotor rods has been modeled, so it could be maybe still a candidate of 4 stars or even more?- but the animations of it does look not right- the swashplate of the main rotor is wobbling when rotor is turning, but should be only moving on pilot inputs. The rods on the tail rotor aren't animated.
So 4 stars with a big interrogation mark, but tending to 3
The cockpit otherwise does look really nice. Not difficult as the real R44 does not have much instruments. Everything is there, obviously taken from the R22. Only photorealistic textures are missing, so 4 stars from me.
About the systems: Startup is quite correct, but I don't see any "
generic failure modelling (Vne, +ve/-ve G, gear limits)". And, even worse, while testing the fdm, I noticed that there had been a so called CAS/SAS-system added. A eletronic helper which you only find on bigger commercial helicopters to stabilize the helicopter a bit- but not on the R44! To get 3 stars there shouldn't be any unrealistic systems, but with the missing limits and the unrealistic CAS/SAS, i can only give 2 stars!
Now we come to the fdm...
Ouch! Sorry, but the fdm is completly wrong. As an american heli, it has a counterclockwise rotor, and so the heli should rotate clockwise. (actio - reactio).
But when I lift the collective, the heli begins to spin counterclockwise, I have to step into the right pedal. That's not correct!
Maybe just a bug, I went on. The R44 is known as quite sensitive to inputs, a bit less maybe than her smaller sister R22, but still enough for needing an extra Awareness training in RL. Against FlightGear's version of it is really simple too fly. Just keep the stick centered, and the heli hovers like a flying carpet. Even without SAS there aren't many inputs needed to keep the heli stable. It reacts really slow on inputs, feels sluggish.
Again, a wrong behaviour.
Climb rates seems to less for me, only speeds seems more or less right. While adjusting Load and balance, I noticed that the FGFS R44 has 3 fuel tanks. The virtual engine doesn't need to consume any fuel, again that's wrong. The real R44 has only one main fuel tank, and one auxiliary fuel tank.
I take a look into the R44-yasim.xml-file. Many numbers and values I don't understand, but there are some I do. Like the rotor rpm- too high, as the R44 has a 100% rpm of about 400. (and not 495 as in the file). Or the weight of the main blades. It seems much to high for me, it has the same value than the bigger BO105.
So I'm not sure if it uses a fdm of an other aircraft.
So I would give only 0-1 stars.
My resultat for the R44:
0-1
2
4
4? But I tend to 3
9- 11stars = beta
At least, the R44 has some nice sounds, I guess they are realistic and probably recorded from the real thing. And with this, we come a big missing thing on this rating system: what's with the sound?
Overall Conclusion:So I think, the rating system is already quite good, but maybe needs some more exact definitions.
When can we speak of accuracy?
What is, when a one of two needed things for a rating is not true?
And what's about sound? Sound is important as well!
Large posting, especially as it is my very first posting here.
Maybe the authors of the mentioned aircraft here won't like it. But I do think a good rating system and correctly used can help users to find their aircraft and aircraft authors to improve their aircraft.
Kind regards
Pierre Mueller