2,561
edits
Aircraft rating system: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Formalizing Aircraft Status
m (lets collect suggestions about how to more properly determine aircraft status) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Formalizing Aircraft Status == | == Formalizing Aircraft 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 describe an aircraft's development progress. Which can be pretty frustrating for developers, contributors and users, because of different expectations. | === 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 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 is mainly because of the fact that different people may have different requirements 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. | ||
This page is dedicated to providing a place to start collecting suggestions about how to describe aircraft development status more formally and reliably. | === Scope === | ||
This page is dedicated to providing a place to start collecting suggestions about how to describe aircraft development status more formally and reliably, to point out the strengths and weaknesses of individual aircraft implementations more comprehensively. | |||
This classification process should preferably take place by following certain conventions, so that it is likely that the majority of aircraft types, as well as their various features, are covered. | Given that people seem to be expecting different things when they read about an aircraft's development status being "alpha", "beta" or "production", it should be possible to address this issue, by starting to classify each aircraft's individual components (i.e. fdm, cockpit panel, 3d model etc) directly, rather than the overall aircraft itself. | ||
This classification process should preferably take place by following certain conventions, so that it is likely that the majority of aircraft types, as well as their various features, are covered thoroughly. | |||
This could for example be achieved by starting to evaluate aircraft based on factors such as the following: | This could for example be achieved by starting to evaluate aircraft based on factors such as the following: | ||
| Line 27: | Line 30: | ||
* available support for multiplayer | * available support for multiplayer | ||
* available support for AI (i.e. 3D models featuring LOD support may be reused by the AI system) | |||
* available support for runtime customization (i.e. liveries) | * available support for runtime customization (i.e. liveries) | ||
* available support for eye candy/effects | * available support for eye candy/effects | ||
* available support for saving/loading and continuing flights | * available support for saving/loading and continuing flights | ||
In addition, it is important to keep in mind that there are different requirements for aircraft to appear "realistic" - depending on whether they are mainly used in VFR settings or IFR settings, where the former application scenario puts an increased demand on visual effects, the latter requires IFR-specific features to be in place, for example proper IFR instrumentation, as well as correct navigation lights. | |||
Therefore, it might be a good idea to not only evaluate individual components of an aircraft, but also its readiness for certain usage scenarios, such as for example VFR/IFR flight. | |||