Board index FlightGear Development Aircraft

Aircraft Rating System

Questions and discussion about creating aircraft. Flight dynamics, 3d models, cockpits, systems, animation, textures.

Re: Aircraft Rating System

Postby Pierre.Mueller » Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:05 pm

Hello,

Sorry, It was a bit rude that I didn't introduced myself first. :oops:

My review here was only mentioned to test the rating system. The here introduced aircraft are only meant as an example for.

I didn't read all posting about the developement of the rating system, but I believe it was difficult.
I think it is pretty good, but I also do think it can be even made better.

I think sound is also important, so it should be taken into account.

Thanks for all the great work, and especially for just listening. From the sim I'm coming you never had been heard.... :wink:
And wrong statements about realism of an aircraft are quite common there. There isn't such a powerful tool available- at least i didn't heard.

Kind Regards
Pierre Mueller
Pierre.Mueller
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:06 pm

Re: Aircraft Rating System

Postby Gijs » Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:23 pm

helijah wrote on Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:10 am:At this time (13-12-2011) there are, in my hangar, with aircraft rating system :

Don't forget to add all the ratings to Git (e.g. the B25 is missing), so we can include the ratings in the 2.6.0 download page.
Airports: EHAM, EHLE, KSFO
Aircraft: 747-400, DC-2, F-117, Jetman, L1011-500
FlightGear Liveries
User avatar
Gijs
Moderator
 
Posts: 8474
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:55 pm
Location: Amsterdam/Delft, the Netherlands
Callsign: PH-GYS
Version: Git
OS: Windows 7

Re: Aircraft Rating System

Postby helijah » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:01 pm

Pierre.Mueller wrote on Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:13 am: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.html
http://airplanesandrockets.com/airplanes/martin-baker-mb5-1971-aam.htm
http://www.martin-baker.com/Sub-Navigation/History/Martn-Baker-MB5.aspx
http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?automodule=downloads&showfile=14943



Hello Pierre

Thank you for all these links. Only they are in English and are useless to me !For the MB5 you are certainly right. I had to do a copy / paste without really interested in the result :)
For FDM I use this page : http://wiki.flightgear.org/Formalizing_Aircraft_Status and you right... 3 is very more for the MB 5 :(

The simplest in this case is that you modify the elements and you send me the result I would put online immediately. Maintain 200 models (soon 201) is not simple and sometimes I miss some important things :(

Regards Emmanuel
Some planes (and other) for FlightGear
http://helijah.free.fr
and
http://embaranger.free.fr
User avatar
helijah
 
Posts: 788
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Chartres (France)
Callsign: helijah
IRC name: helijah
Version: GIT
OS: GNU/Linux

Re: Aircraft Rating System

Postby Torsten » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:03 pm

Hi Pierre,

thanks for taking your time to verify the ratings and for your feedback. This is very much appreciated.
Pierre.Mueller wrote on Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:13 am:The 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.

If you start up the SenecaII for the first time, you are not in a cold and dark aircraft. For simplicity and the joy of the user, the aircraft has the Master-Switch in it's ON position on startup. The SenecaII remembers it's state upon exit of FlightGear (if you exit regularly and have autosave enabled). So, switch of the Master-Switch, exit FlightGear (ESC->Yes) and restart fgfs with the Seneca selected.Now, your Master-Switch is off and your gyros are silent. Once you kick the Master-Switch to on, the electrically driven gyros spin up.
Just out of curiosity: what's the 1% of the systems you are missing?

Pierre.Mueller wrote on Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:13 am: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)

Yeah - never found the time yet to implement the Garmin 155 GPS and the GTX330 Transponder.

Pierre.Mueller wrote on Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:13 am: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.

No objections - The outside model needs a rework. Actually I really never was too much interested in the outside view of the Seneca. I spend 99.9% of my time watching the instruments ;-) Just a word on the window and instrument glasses: it's intentional that they are barely visible. They window glasses become hidden from the inside view. For my personal taste, many of the glass shaders and reflections are very much overdone. But that's a matter of taste.
Side Note: the Seneca's real-life counterpart needs an overhaul of its exterior, too - so this is somewhat realistic ;-)
can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I - (Pink Floyd)
User avatar
Torsten
 
Posts: 354
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: near Hamburg, Germany
Version: next
OS: Linux

Re: Aircraft Rating System

Postby Johan G » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:13 pm

Torsten wrote on Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:03 pm:Just a word on the window and instrument glasses: it's intentional that they are barely visible. They window glasses become hidden from the inside view. For my personal taste, many of the glass shaders and reflections are very much overdone. But that's a matter of taste.

I have to agree completely with you here. :(
Low-level flying — It's all fun and games till someone looses an engine. (Paraphrased from a YouTube Video)
Johan G
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:33 pm
Location: Sweden
Callsign: SE-JG
IRC name: Johan_G
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Windows 7, 32 bit

Re: Aircraft Rating System

Postby Hooray » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:15 pm

Pierre, just in case you didn't notice (and because they didn't mention it): The people replying to you now are the developers of the aircraft you reviewed and commented on.
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
Nasal | Projects | Core development |
Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 5600
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: Aircraft Rating System

Postby Torsten » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:18 pm

Yeah - we tend to be a bit shy at times :oops:
can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I - (Pink Floyd)
User avatar
Torsten
 
Posts: 354
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: near Hamburg, Germany
Version: next
OS: Linux

Re: Aircraft Rating System

Postby helijah » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:39 pm

Ah ! in fact, Here are a significant improvement in the 3D SenecaII know that Torsten. maybe some here will appreciate :)

http://helijah.free.fr/senecaII-29-04-2009.tar.gz

Not to hinder the work of Torsten, launch --aircraft=senecaII-2

Result :
Image

Regards. Emmanuel
Some planes (and other) for FlightGear
http://helijah.free.fr
and
http://embaranger.free.fr
User avatar
helijah
 
Posts: 788
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Chartres (France)
Callsign: helijah
IRC name: helijah
Version: GIT
OS: GNU/Linux

Re: Aircraft Rating System

Postby Pierre.Mueller » Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:23 pm

Hello,

helijah wrote on Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:01 pm:Hello Pierre

Thank you for all these links. Only they are in English and are useless to me !For the MB5 you are certainly right. I had to do a copy / paste without really interested in the result
For FDM I use this page : http://wiki.flightgear.org/Formalizing_Aircraft_Status and you right... 3 is very more for the MB 5

The simplest in this case is that you modify the elements and you send me the result I would put online immediately. Maintain 200 models (soon 201) is not simple and sometimes I miss some important things :(

Regards Emmanuel


Why are the links useless? They are full of informations!
And why you aren't really interested in the resultat? I thought this sim is about flying... And I always thought FGFS target is quality and not quantity! I hope that the other 200 (or 199?) are much better. :wink: Did not tried all yet....

I can fly aircraft in sims and understand physics behind flying a little bit. But I can't create any config files, so the aircraft will fly correct and realistic.
So sorry, I can't help help you and modify things.

Torsten wrote on Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:03 pm:Hi Pierre,

thanks for taking your time to verify the ratings and for your feedback. This is very much appreciated.

If you start up the SenecaII for the first time, you are not in a cold and dark aircraft. For simplicity and the joy of the user, the aircraft has the Master-Switch in it's ON position on startup. The SenecaII remembers it's state upon exit of FlightGear (if you exit regularly and have autosave enabled). So, switch of the Master-Switch, exit FlightGear (ESC->Yes) and restart fgfs with the Seneca selected.Now, your Master-Switch is off and your gyros are silent. Once you kick the Master-Switch to on, the electrically driven gyros spin up.
Just out of curiosity: what's the 1% of the systems you are missing?


I really like flying the SenecaII. But I never noticed that the Master-switch is already in On-Position. I wouldn't care if it would be in OFF-position. Just a litte switch more to switch.... But nice feature with this Autosave-thing!

I don't know the real thing, so I wasn't sure if really all systems are done. So just for fairness I said 99%. No offense meant!

Torsten wrote:No objections - The outside model needs a rework. Actually I really never was too much interested in the outside view of the Seneca. I spend 99.9% of my time watching the instruments ;-) Just a word on the window and instrument glasses: it's intentional that they are barely visible. They window glasses become hidden from the inside view. For my personal taste, many of the glass shaders and reflections are very much overdone. But that's a matter of taste.
Side Note: the Seneca's real-life counterpart needs an overhaul of its exterior, too - so this is somewhat realistic ;-)


I think this aircraft deserves a much better exterior model. But you are right: most of the aircraft in FGFS has a nice looking exterior- but inside....Oh my god.
I did not meant the interior glas- here you are right. As an example the R44 - too much for my tasting at least....
But from outside it does look like on the SenecaII as there is no glas. But again: just for my taste.

Just to make clear: it is just my point of view, i accept that any other here will see it maybe different.

I just tried to use the new Rating system, so I used the mentioned aircraft just as an example- beside the mentioned things the system works pretty good, and I'm sure it will be helpfull for users like me!

Thanks
Kind Regards
Pierre Mueller
Pierre.Mueller
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:06 pm

Re: Aircraft Rating System

Postby helijah » Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:17 pm

Hey Pierre,

I will not repeat an explanation I have given thousands of times. But I do not like what we do with airplanes. But only the aircraft. For history, imagination, inventions, patents etc. .... they provide. The pilot is for me a waste of time. And if the links are useless to me, as I said is that they are in English. Brief comment on the R44. The FDM has been fully reviewed by a real pilot R44. I totally trust him.

I model aircraft for FG and not to grow my personal ego. I did what I can do. The rest exist only by the goodwill of others. Example ! Douglas Dc-3, R44, Falcon50 etc.....

What I like is to make discover the aircraft that most people do not know. And through them to discover the history of aviation. Bugatti Model 100, Hughes H4, Gloster E28/38, Heinkel 178, Arrado Ar 234, Pterodactyl, Northrop XB 35 etc...

Modern aircraft exist only because of the inventors (crazy or almost) who had ideas long ago. Do not forget them. :)

Regards. Emmanuel
Some planes (and other) for FlightGear
http://helijah.free.fr
and
http://embaranger.free.fr
User avatar
helijah
 
Posts: 788
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Chartres (France)
Callsign: helijah
IRC name: helijah
Version: GIT
OS: GNU/Linux

Re: Aircraft Rating System

Postby Pierre.Mueller » Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:01 pm

Salut,

helijah wrote on Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:17 pm:Hey Pierre,

I will not repeat an explanation I have given thousands of times.


Not to me :wink:

But I do not like what we do with airplanes. But only the aircraft. For history, imagination, inventions, patents etc. .... they provide. The pilot is for me a waste of time. And if the links are useless to me, as I said is that they are in English.


Sorry, I don't understand you here.
Who do you mean with "we"? FGFS; the developers of FGFS; Users; the world; France ?
Why is the pilot a waste of time?

Sorry, but I do understand nothing what you mean .... :oops:

Regarding the links- just because they don't are in french? Come on! For numbers and values your english should be enough.

Brief comment on the R44. The FDM has been fully reviewed by a real pilot R44. I totally trust him.


Are you serious? There is absolutly nothing right- you don't need to be a real pilot to see that the heli should turn in the other direction.
And even the other things like rpm, fuel tanks- no need for a PoH- just use Google! :shock:


I model aircraft for FG and not to grow my personal ego. I did what I can do. The rest exist only by the goodwill of others. Example ! Douglas Dc-3, R44, Falcon50 etc.....

What I like is to make discover the aircraft that most people do not know. And through them to discover the history of aviation. Bugatti Model 100, Hughes H4, Gloster E28/38, Heinkel 178, Arrado Ar 234, Pterodactyl, Northrop XB 35 etc...

Modern aircraft exist only because of the inventors (crazy or almost) who had ideas long ago. Do not forget them. :)

Regards. Emmanuel


Sure! Without a team a good and realistic aircraft isn't possible.
And there have been a lot of nice and rare aircraft in the past. But i totally differ- I want them to have flying realistic as well. And as I understood the motto of FGFS this sim should be realistic. And this includes the aircraft as well. For just showing how they look we don't need FGFS.

Like a steam model train being behind a show case- nice, but boring.

Anyway, we went completly Off-Topic. Thanks for the explanations! :)

Kind Regards
Pierre Mueller
Pierre.Mueller
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:06 pm

Re: Aircraft Rating System

Postby fredb » Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:41 pm

What about an additional flag or rating to signal aircraft that was converted to run with rembrandt (working lights and shaders, transparent surfaces verified) ?
User avatar
fredb
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:41 am
Location: Paris, France

Re: Aircraft Rating System

Postby Bjoern » Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:12 pm

fredb wrote on Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:41 pm:What about an additional flag or rating to signal aircraft that was converted to run with rembrandt (working lights and shaders, transparent surfaces verified) ?


In favor.
Do a barrel roll!
User avatar
Bjoern
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:00 pm
Location: Nearest: THF
Version: Next
OS: ArchLinux, Win 7

Re: Aircraft Rating System

Postby F-JJTH » Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:44 pm

fredb wrote on Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:41 pm:What about an additional flag or rating to signal aircraft that was converted to run with rembrandt (working lights and shaders, transparent surfaces verified) ?

Why not ;)
User avatar
F-JJTH
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:02 am
Location: Avignon, France
Callsign: F-JJTH
IRC name: F-JJTH
Version: GIT
OS: Linux Mint 16

Re: Aircraft Rating System

Postby helijah » Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:44 pm

Gijs wrote on Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:38 am:Welcome Pierre! Also on behalf of Hooray ;)

I would advise you to contact the aircraft' authors and share your doubts about their ratings. I've just added a "issue type" to our issue tracker: Type-StatusRating. Feel free to create an entry for each of the aircraft you disagree with. Generally developers are very happy to receive feedback, especially when supported by good/extensive arguments.

Cheers,
Gijs


Hi Gijs and Hooray,

Obviously, I can only confirm your comments. Public criticism is really an easy and most destructive act. Absolutely nothing constructive can be create with it.
I never refuse the notes, comments and improvements sent me. With a few minutes to study the different airplanes in my hangar, this becomes evident.
Now it is true that some people (thankfully few) have decided to disparage my work no matter what. Fortunately, this is done without really much thought.
Despite their bad faith, and dishonest intentions, I would continue to do what I always did. Modeled airplanes and offer everyone the opportunity to improve the organization through a simple files organisation.

Regards Emmanuel
Some planes (and other) for FlightGear
http://helijah.free.fr
and
http://embaranger.free.fr
User avatar
helijah
 
Posts: 788
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Chartres (France)
Callsign: helijah
IRC name: helijah
Version: GIT
OS: GNU/Linux

PreviousNext

Return to Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest