Hooray wrote in Wed May 28, 2014 9:56 am:it's a fictional "aircraft" - besides, what else would you like to see improved
And obviously the rating system was not conceived with fictional aircraft in mind.Obviously, the bluebird is another example, but much more developed
It doesn't bother me that the Ogel is rated so highly, because, I can see right away it's not based on something realistic. But, on FDM accuracy, I would rate it a 5/5 if it flew anything like my son's Duplo planes (ie not at all). If there's a fun rating, it would be at least a 4, simply for the model itself.
But you mentioned the Bluebird, well, I took one look (didn't download it yet), and thought, "futuristic-BladeRunner-air-car-transport-thing". Now, if the FDM comes from the UFO's FDM I would probably rate it 0-1, but since it's fictional we don't know how the thing works, but at least if it *feels* realistic, ie affected by turbulance, wind, bounces on landing, scrapes if you bank too much on landing, creates shockwave going mach1, etc.. like what we expect something like that to behave, even though if put into an actual concept it won't be exactly like that, I would give it at least a 4 because of all the other things. That's all my personal opinion of course.
Another minor thing I would point out is that the Cessna 182 Fixed Gear is rated higher than the Retractable Gear version. Having spent some time flying the RG, and then took one look at the non-RG version (plus a few posts on these forums about the FDM of the non-RG), I feel the RG version should be rated higher. Other things being equal (because essentially everything else is the same), the FDM in the RG is better. Even though I suspect the FDM is lifted and modified from the 172P.