helijah wrote in Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:10 am:At this time (13-12-2011) there are, in my hangar, with aircraft rating system :
Pierre.Mueller wrote in 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:
8 stars= alpha
Pierre.Mueller wrote in 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.
Pierre.Mueller wrote in 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)
Pierre.Mueller wrote in 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.
Torsten wrote in 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.
helijah wrote in 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
Torsten wrote in 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?
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
helijah wrote in 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.
fredb wrote in 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) ?
Gijs wrote in 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.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests