Give it a try, I believe you won't regret...

[jcomm 6,058]

I can't help to leave here a very positive note on this last (2.8) FlightGear release, in each and every aspect, from the new graphics to the new version of the JSBSim FD. Great Fun!!!!

 

Played around with the remarkable Cessna 337, but also with the default Cub, using RW Weather and Rembrandt-enhanced graphics. Runs smooth as silk on my system, the flight models, now even with the new helicopter model based on the JSBSim platform, and it's all FOR FREE!

 

Please, don't forget to give it a fair try, and don't give up on what may well be the only "negative" aspect of FG - the joystick configuration to suite your hardware, usually requiring some XML editing. Read the Wiki and you'll most certainly find your way through it, and soon get into the "air" with one of the default models or some of the best freeware (of course...) add-ons, like those from here:

 

http://www.vivefg.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48:cessna-337-skymaster&catid=35:hangar&Itemid=40

 

 

 

 

[HansRoaming 73]

 

 

But very few of us are interested in that aspect.

 

So what's your point? It's their time and money for hosting, they can do what they want and it's great that they offer what they do for anyone else to try out to see if they enjoy too.

[HUSSAR 272]

Perhaps end users might not be interested in this "openness" directly, but it makes it much easier to develop add-ons and enhancements, which results in a better simulator.

As long as there is good oversight and even better leadership especially in open source. As I wrote in another thread projects that are run by public companies are often decided upon what the shareholders say or want, this would not be a factor if it remained open source.

[momtchil 32]

But very few of us are interested in that aspect.

Well I am, think you are too. Many of the members on these forums are as well. I think everyone who uses a certain software for a long time eventually becomes at least a little interested in how exactly it works.

 

In my opinion - generally, end users should be interested in this aspect (we're not talking experts here, just a little interest to build on). It has the potential to make them much more proficient users of the software. The same thing could be said about any product, gadget, gizmo, etc..... its not just relevant to software,

Aeroplanes for example - Who on these forums isn't interested in how these work? Who would like to be able to build their own? :biggrin:

That type of curiosity is always a benefit and helps us learn and create new things. It should be encouraged.

[mgh 89]

@ HansRoaming and Momchill

 

As I said I am not interested in developing a flight simulator. Nor am I interested in a flight simulator that isn't a good as the ones I already have.

 

 

I have tried each release of Flightgear but each time I've uninstalled it after a while.

[HansRoaming 73]

Fine, if you're not interested in it then uninstall it and walk away, don't bash them for it.

[stuart_d_buchanan 4]

@Robert : Absolutely. That's one of the great (indirect) advantages of FG - provided someone somewhere is interested in developing it, it will continue to be supported and developed. It won't be orphaned because it didn't quite match a companies expectations. There's also no restriction on what you can do with it.

 

There is a downside to this, which is that the developers do what interests them, and so some areas get less development than others. General usability has been one of those neglected areas, but some developers (including myself) are doing what they can to improve it there.

 

-Stuart

[mgh 89]

...provided someone somewhere is interested in developing it...

 

But isn't the perennial defence of Flightgear's supporters that it could be a good simulation if only...?

[HansRoaming 73]

Your quote is out of context, it was referencing that being open source that anyone can ensure it has a future as opposed to FSX which is abandon ware.

 

I fly FSX with many add ons and measure their life at about two to three years.

[mgh 89]

Your quote is out of context, it was referencing that being open source that anyone can ensure it has a future as opposed to FSX which is abandon ware.

 

I fly FSX with many add ons and measure their life at about two to three years.

 

When Flightgear becomes as good as FSX then I'll use it but i'm not holding my breath.

[momtchil 32]

When Flightgear becomes as good as FSX then I'll use it but i'm not holding my breath.

FlightGear has been steadily improving over the years. With time it certainly does have the potential to get better than FSX.

Who knows it may become the FS sim of choice in the future, or at the very least a highly popular sim - its popularity has also been increasing steadily.

[nfmz1 1]

FG 10 is available and voila! joystick out the box woohoo.

[HansRoaming 73]

Might have to give it a download as joystick support is key for me.

[mgh 89]

FG 10 is available and voila! joystick out the box woohoo.

 

Remind me - which was the first version of Microsoft FS in which the joystick worked out of the box?

[LHookins 3,117]

Remind me - which was the first version of Microsoft FS in which the joystick worked out of the box?

 

You didn't have a joystick then either, huh?

 

Hook

[nfmz1 1]

Remind me - which was the first version of Microsoft FS in which the joystick worked out of the box?

 

Let me retract my statement and not drop to a level i dont like either. I apologize and Hook I will take your advice sir thank you.