Dornier 228

[Flyingfootball]

I noticed that the Dornier 228 exists but is somewhat incomplete.

It lacks some of the avionics in the cockpit, the engines cannot be started or turned off or even failed, and the movement is a little off; Upon landing it often tends to roll onto its side and veer left, and the real life version is more maneuverable.

I found one version that looked better and had seats:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=33157

The thing is, I don't really have much modelling or scripting experience, so I'm not sure how I'd go about upgrading this. If I could, I'd try to make the cockpit in the NG version, with working EICAS and PFDs, or if not in the older analog cockpit version.

My question is, how would I go about doing this, or potentially getting someone better skilled to be in on the project?

Are there licensing issues I need to be concerned about?

[Johan G]

[...] I don't really have much modelling or scripting experience, so I'm not sure how I'd go about upgrading this. If I could, I'd try to make the cockpit in the NG version, with working EICAS and PFDs, or if not in the older analog cockpit version.

My question is, how would I go about doing this, or potentially getting someone better skilled to be in on the project?

Start small, for example adding a "steam gauge" instrument like a backup altimeter.

Usually it is better to see improving an aircraft as a long term project, which makes learning the tools (for example Blender, Inkscape or GIMP) and aircraft development (XML configuration files, Nasal, etc) only a part of the process. Some of them will be useful in other contexts as well. Learning these things while modifying an existing aircraft is way easier than when creating an aircraft from scratch, so that will work in your favour.

The aircraft developer portal of the FlightGear wiki might be a good starting point.

Are there licensing issues I need to be concerned about?

For most licences the key thing to consider is to make sure you do not mix in copyrighted content unless they have a compatible license. If you create the content yourself using references this should not be an issue (for example when using cockpit photos to make sure you get correct types and placement of instruments).

You will have to abide with the license of the aircraft you are improving. If it is from FGAddon it will state that it uses "GNU GPL v2" or "GNU GPL or later". If you have not skimmed through GPLv2, I would recommend it, as there sometimes is a bit confusion about for example commercial reuse etc.

[Flyingfootball]

Thank you!

That one page seems to have a large portion of the info I need.

[legoboyvdlp]

Doesn't HHS have a Do228 in progress - I may be wrong but as far as I remember he was working on it. Maybe you could use that as a base rather than FGMEMBERS which is an entirely unofficial, also potentially outdated distributor of aircraft

[xcvb]

The Do228 and Do328 are different aircrafts.

[legoboyvdlp]

Ah ok - thanks!

[Flyingfootball]

I don't understand; is FGmembers not official?
I found the 228 originally from the "browse" section on the launcher, it seems to be made by helijah.

[wkitty42]

that site was never official...

[legoboyvdlp]

Certainly not - you may wish to see this:
https://www.flightgear.org/info/fgmembers-statement/

[Flyingfootball]

I see and understand now. This makes me think, what are the officially supported sources of aircraft and scenery?

I find that VNLK is really unrealistic in the HD scenery on the website.

Also, are there hangars whos aircraft are better preferred? I'm looking for a good looking, complete Dual engine GA aircraft other than the Cessna 337 (I love it and fly it already, but prefer the engines on the wings like on the cessna 310 (which probably needs a better looking model)


Thank you.

[Johan G]

[...] what are the officially supported sources of aircraft and scenery?

The FGAddon aircraft hangar and the TerraSync scenery. Both should be accessible directly from within FlightGear. See also the FlightGear wiki articles FGAddon and TerraSync.

[...] are there hangars whos aircraft are better preferred?

FlightGear UK (FGUK), La patrouille de france Flightgear (P.A.F) and Operation Red Flag (OPRF) are the first ones that comes to mind (though the last one do not have any GA aircraft). For a more complete list of 3rd party hangars see the FlightGear hangars article on the FlightGear wiki.

It is worth noting that there is a way to add 3rd party hangars in FlightGear so they will show up similar to how the FGAddon hangar show up.

[wkitty42]

It is worth noting that there is a way to add 3rd party hangars in FlightGear so they will show up similar to how the FGAddon hangar show up.

just to add a little more to this, it requires that the hanger operator create the necessary index file(s) and package the craft in a certain manner so they can be downloaded and installed automatically by the launcher... to add a 3rd party hanger, one needs to know the url of the index file(s) to put into the launcher's aircraft area... once it knows the index location, it can gather the necessary information to display the available craft to you so you can install them or not...

[Flyingfootball]

I've flown some of those, I love how the Aerostar super 700 is such a small file at 3mb but still such a pleasure to fly and look at! Its cockpit is super complete as well.

The DA42 is also similarly a pleasure to fly, I absolutely love it!

Terrasync seems to require a super fast internet connection, is there a way to download that terrain first and then fly with terrasync off? I'm concerned about inadvertently spending way too much data and oblivious to the expenditure, so for now I just download the 10×10 sections of terrain one or two at a time.

I see. In that case it seems like downloading individual aircraft is fine then.

[Johan G]

Terrasync seems to require a super fast internet connection, is there a way to download that terrain first and then fly with terrasync off?

For downloading scenery in advance turning of TerraSync in FlightGear and downloading the TerraScync scenery with TerraMaster instead is relatively popular. There are also scripts for syncing the downloaded scenery that have been updated.

I'm concerned about inadvertently spending way too much data and oblivious to the expenditure [...]

If you are not the one paying the Internet bills you might want to ask if it is a flat rate (in essence the same cost every month) or if depends on how much that is downloaded and uploaded. These days many parts of the world have a flat rate, though sometimes with a cap (say 40 GB per month and after that a throttled connection or extra fees).

[Flyingfootball]

Thank you. I think Its a flat rate, but I'm over cautious

Sure, I will do terramaster.

Thanks