2,561
edits
Aircraft rating system: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
* status/realism of cockpit panels (2D/3D) | * status/realism of cockpit panels (2D/3D) | ||
* status/realism of aircraft-specific instruments | * status/realism of aircraft-specific instruments | ||
* status/realism of procedure modeling (i.e. startup) | |||
* status/realism of systems modeling | * status/realism of systems modeling | ||
* status/realism of failure modeling | * status/realism of failure modeling | ||
| Line 50: | Line 51: | ||
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). | 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). | ||
== Overall Rating/Status == | |||
If an overall aircraft rating is desired, it should be possible to easily determine it, as a product of factors, based on the status information of its individual components, taking into account that the weight of said information varies, depending on the type of aircraft, and it's requirements. | |||
== Related Mailing List Discussions == | == Related Mailing List Discussions == | ||