Howto:Write a FlightGear Review: Difference between revisions
(→Intro) |
|||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| date = Feb 3rd, 2016 | | date = Feb 3rd, 2016 | ||
| added = Feb 3rd, 2016 | | added = Feb 3rd, 2016 | ||
| script_version = 0.25 | |||
}} | |||
}} | |||
{{FGCquote | |||
|1= Some points a review could potentially talk about - stimulus material for reviewers: | |||
A check list of things that FG does well, and that other sims do not have or are not likely to have might help with write ups? (for instance the weather simulation, and the way it interacts with terrain to both affect flight and provde visual cues). Examples of aviation situations where FGs strengths at simulating come to the fore would help reviewers. I think the promotional value of specifying unique aspects should not be underestimated for a sim that people currently invested in other sims can try out easily. | |||
A list of links to evidence that give measures of the quality of JSBSim as well as accuracy of some of FG FDMs might help, as they can be dropped in reviews to great persuasive effect (e.g. [http://nescacademy.nasa.gov/flightsim/ this] link from an article in the tour section). | |||
FG reviews have to contain some reference of FG's opensource nature and what it means. What are a checklist of positives to include? Are there examples of issues in closed source projects that an open source engine would avoid? e.g. aircraft devs getting stranded by lack of engine development. | |||
(Is the [http://www.flightgear.org/about/features/ features] page up to date? Any journalist reviewing FG would look at that.. come to think of it screenshots on the front page are outdated). | |||
|2= {{cite web | |||
| url = http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=277089#p277089 | |||
| title = <nowiki>Re: How to write a FlightGear review (brainstorming) ?</nowiki> | |||
| author = <nowiki>vnts</nowiki> | |||
| date = Feb 21st, 2016 | |||
| added = Feb 21st, 2016 | |||
| script_version = 0.25 | | script_version = 0.25 | ||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 11:35, 22 February 2016
This article is a stub. You can help the wiki by expanding it. |
Release process |
---|
Objective
Provide a simple framework/guideline for people wanting to review FlightGear, to make sure that reviews are kept constructive and helpful, i.e. so that they can help guide the future of the program.
Why reviews matter
the whole reset/re-init work seems to be largely based on FlightGear reviews stating how the sim is unable to save/load/resume flights and change aircraft without restarting the whole simulator: FlightGear Sessions#Problem
Those reviews mentioned there predate the reset/re-init effort by several years, and while the original reviews may not be very objective, they did have /some/ merits - and it seems that some core developers do care about such reviews and are sufficiently motivated by reviews highlighting certain issues - for instance, Stuart used to be an avid participant in "usability" discussions, including reviews of FlightGear highlighting the lack of usability - equally, the Qt5 effort could be said to be aimed at making FG more accessbile. And the FlightGear multicore debate is seeing some attention via HLA - so people certainly care, it's just the timeframe that makes things appear very unresponsive |
Intro
Some points a review could potentially talk about - stimulus material for reviewers:
A check list of things that FG does well, and that other sims do not have or are not likely to have might help with write ups? (for instance the weather simulation, and the way it interacts with terrain to both affect flight and provde visual cues). Examples of aviation situations where FGs strengths at simulating come to the fore would help reviewers. I think the promotional value of specifying unique aspects should not be underestimated for a sim that people currently invested in other sims can try out easily. A list of links to evidence that give measures of the quality of JSBSim as well as accuracy of some of FG FDMs might help, as they can be dropped in reviews to great persuasive effect (e.g. this link from an article in the tour section). FG reviews have to contain some reference of FG's opensource nature and what it means. What are a checklist of positives to include? Are there examples of issues in closed source projects that an open source engine would avoid? e.g. aircraft devs getting stranded by lack of engine development. (Is the features page up to date? Any journalist reviewing FG would look at that.. come to think of it screenshots on the front page are outdated).— vnts (Feb 21st, 2016). Re: How to write a FlightGear review (brainstorming) ?.
(powered by Instant-Cquotes) |
Motivation
Things to cover
- FlightGear version to be reviewed, download location
- background of the reviewer (e.g. previous flight simulation experience)
- target audience
- focus of the review
- expectations of the reviewer
- simulator performance
- quality of visuals, audio/effects, aircraft systems
- operating system, hardware (graphics card, ram, cpu)
- settings used
- aircraft/airports tested
- summary (pros & cons, suggestions for improvement)
- conclusion / final words
Content
- Screenshots
- Youtube videos
Summary
Most reviews on websites provide a conclusion that sums up the value of a product. Often it's aimed at the lowest common denominator (the worst example of this being a score), and sometimes it even goes against the tone of the rest of the review. Ideally reviews should try to separate out how different categories of people might value FG based on their criteria, as far as the experience of the reviewer allows them to say.
(This is something FG reviewers should be conscious of because FG can suffer from a conclusion aimed at the lowest common denominator - which turns out less positive than it could be because of FG's quirks/entry barriers). — vnts (Feb 21st, 2016). Re: How to write a FlightGear review (brainstorming) ?.
(powered by Instant-Cquotes) |
Reviews
- http://www.golem.de/news/flightgear-2-6-0-open-source-flugsimulator-mit-verbesserter-ki-1202-89961.html
- http://www.tectonic.co.za/cooltool.php?coolid=1166
- http://games4mac.de/content_g4m/reviews/flightgear.php
- http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/flightgear
- http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/8-awesome-free-opensource-games-enjoy-windows-mac-linux/
- http://www.chip.de/downloads/FlightGear_15932278.html