2,561
edits
Aircraft rating system: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Intro
(linking to forum topic) |
m (→Intro) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
=== Intro === | === Intro === | ||
Based on various mailing list discussions since 11/2007, it is getting clear that the current method of classifying aircraft development status is not satisfactory to adequately and fully describe an aircraft's development progress. Which can be pretty frustrating for developers, contributors and users, because of different expectations about an aircraft's "status". | Based on various mailing list discussions since 11/2007, it is getting clear that the current method of classifying aircraft development status is not satisfactory to adequately and fully describe an aircraft's development progress. Which can be pretty frustrating for developers, contributors and users, because of different expectations about an aircraft's "status". | ||
This can be even witnessed in more recent discussions (03/2009), where users explicitly inquire about recommendation for feature-complete aircraft [http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3171]. | |||
This is mainly because of the fact that different people may have different requirements when it comes to aircraft status and are thus viewing the status from different angles, possibly neglecting progress in other areas. | This is mainly because of the fact that different people may have different requirements when it comes to aircraft status and are thus viewing the status from different angles, possibly neglecting progress in other areas. | ||