2,561
edits
Aircraft rating system: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Suggestions
m (→Suggestions) |
m (→Suggestions) |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
It can be expected that following this or similarly factually objective approaches to classifying aircraft development status, should not only help people understanding more easily and more completely an individual aircraft's development status, but also highlight the strengths and weaknesses of an aircraft, so that aircraft authors are motivated because of the work they have actually done, rather than being discouraged because of the work they could not (yet) do, or might possibly never be able to do because of it being outside their usual scope of contributions. | |||
Additionally, this would also help aircraft becoming more self-documented, so that new contributors could more easily see where and how their help could be used. | |||
== Implementation == | |||
Implementing support for more thorough status-tracking should be fairly straight forward, as the current approach of keeping aircraft status information by using a property tree node in an aircraft's *-set.xml file, could be easily extended to provide additional meta information, of the aforementioned nature. | |||
On the other hand, some of this information should probably not directly go into the toplevel *-set.xml file, but rather into files of the various components (i.e. the cockpit/panel status would be a good candidate to have its status being tracked directly in the panel file). | |||