20,741
edits
How the FlightGear project works: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
How the FlightGear project works (view source)
Revision as of 21:17, 25 December 2013
, 25 December 2013→Number of aircraft vs. quality of aircraft: http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=15207&start=45#p195022
m (→Lack of Support and Backwards Compatibility: http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=15207&start=45#p195018) |
m (→Number of aircraft vs. quality of aircraft: http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=15207&start=45#p195022) |
||
| Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
Third, because I find it educational. I for instance happen to know that the F-104 Starfighter was pretty accident prone. Just 10 minutes flying around with the thing told me why - when the plane becomes unstable, what maneuvers you can and can't do (I think the Starfighter is also one of these FDMs with plenty of real life experience used by the creator...). I find it interesting to explore how the SR-71 reaches Mach-3 and why it needs to do the funny 'dipsy' maneuver. I find it instructive to understand why one has to fly the Concorde by the book and how fuel consumption figures change if I don't. I want to understand how thrust vectoring can be used and how stable it is. I want to learn what's different about a helicopter. For all this, I need the real physics of flight simulated as faithfully as possible. | Third, because I find it educational. I for instance happen to know that the F-104 Starfighter was pretty accident prone. Just 10 minutes flying around with the thing told me why - when the plane becomes unstable, what maneuvers you can and can't do (I think the Starfighter is also one of these FDMs with plenty of real life experience used by the creator...). I find it interesting to explore how the SR-71 reaches Mach-3 and why it needs to do the funny 'dipsy' maneuver. I find it instructive to understand why one has to fly the Concorde by the book and how fuel consumption figures change if I don't. I want to understand how thrust vectoring can be used and how stable it is. I want to learn what's different about a helicopter. For all this, I need the real physics of flight simulated as faithfully as possible. | ||
As the creator of several aircraft made for Flightgear including a heavily researched Velocity XL and an Edgley Optica, I can say the above observation is nonsense. Fly one of my planes and the controls won't do diddly under 30 knots unless a pilot's handbook or a pilot's report indicates they should. Even the worst flight models in the Flightgear world don't have fully effective controls while sitting still. As for inherent stability, my own efforts are easily trimmed at cruise speeds for relatively benign, hands-off flight to match the flight manual or pilot reports. | |||
Why are some so enamored of FG flight models? I'll state what Thorsten wrote in another way. I'm not a licensed pilot, though I do have stick-time in several light planes. But I'll never fly in an Optica, and I'm very unlikely to ever fly in a Velocity or a Grumman Goose, and no sane airline is going to let me into the flightdeck of an MD-80. By building these models, I can gain an understanding, an insight, and an experience with these aircraft that would otherwise be closed to me. I can know them in some ways that even a pilot might not know them. The closer the simulation matches the real aircraft, the closer my experience comes to that aircraft. I can't experience these planes unless they are correct in every detail that matters, and pursuing that correctness is a long journey, perhaps one without an end. | |||
Maybe I misunderstand the notion of options to make a plane harder or easier to fly. For me, the point is to simulate the aircraft. If the aircraft had functions or gadgets that facilitated making it harder or easier to fly, then fine, that's part of the simulation goal. But it's not the same as a game, where I can select EASY, NORMAL, HARD, or HURT ME PLENTY. There are many planes where someone like me has no business trying even the simulated version. And no real C172 or MD-80 has difficulty modes or configuration files. | |||
Are there "crappy" flight models in the Flightgear world? Sure. Plenty of them. Maybe most of them. But there are some darn nice ones, some made by pilots with hands-on experience, some with the feedback of pilots, and some by non-pilots using meticulous research. Many are simply nice modeling efforts, waiting for someone to come along and create a good flight model, or add systems simulation, or cockpit instruments, or some other contribution. | |||
In the MSFS world, the typical model is a commerical product, released as a complete and well-rounded package. In the FG world, few models are finished, complete efforts. Developers work on what they know and what interests them, and most are open to contribution from others. Few works are above improvement. The neat thing about the Flightgear environment isn't that it's free. It's that if you don't like some aspect, you're welcome to help refine it. You can learn to improve it yourself, or you can help by suggesting well-conceived, objective changes to the authors. Most will listen. And you just might learn something along the way that will surprise or enlighten you. | |||
= You need development guidelines = | = You need development guidelines = | ||