Talk:FlightGear

Yay

Hooray, glad that this article has picked up momentum - the article a few months ago was no ware near adequete enough for such an important piece of software, but now it's really taking shape, great :) I'll try and contribute as much as i can to this article but most things i'm familiar with have already been written :P -Benbread 21:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Another reason to be happy. Flightgear 2.0 preview is here!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.60.65.89 (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

introductory editorial

A drawback of proprietary flight simulators is that it is not possible to add more features to the simulator or control the simulated environment oneself. Proponents of an open source flight simulator argue that such freedom is desirable for research projects and end users. For example, much of the aircraft and engine data is defined in XML files, allowing countless parameters be edited by users who want to explore the effects of various changes, without having to modify the source code or even re-compiling FlightGear.

I agree with this editorial, but it is just that-- a POV interpretation of selective facts to favorably present FlightGear. Its SOLE purpose is to explain why an open source simulator is better, nothing more. Because of its completely POV basis I have removed this section. Analyses and critiques like this DO NOT belong in an encyclopedia.

Comparisons belong in the reader's mind, not in an encyclopedia's words. A reader should NEVER be fed an opinion from a single article. Any evaluation should develop as the reader interprets ideas in is own mind. If open source simulators truely are better, then he should be able to gather that from NPOV articles on the appropriate subjects.

P.S. There are plenty of closed source simulators that allow the customizability (aircraft, engine performance etc.) described. X-Plane, Microsoft Flight Simulator even ATF Gold are a few.

External links

I'm thinking it would be good to remove all external links except the one to the official website. The reviews could be summaries in a little section I guess, and the rest is really only relevant for people who already have the game. Any other views on this? --Lijnema 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Serious policy violation and it sets a poor tone for future article work. I'll see if I can work on expanding this properly, trying to get into Flightgear right now. Chris Cunningham 16:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to have

• Template:Dmoz

as a sort of meta-link (link to links) for those wanting more links. // Liftarn

Yeah, perhaps I was a bit harsh. If you think it would be a good idea to have that link, I have no objections. --Lijnema 01:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Software

I can understand reluctance to include a list, but the importance and nature of the software to FlightGear is critical. For instance, the FDM are what simulate the aircraft inside FlightGear, and both the GUI and libraries are part of the binaries! I will agree it would be better if it were written into a paragraph, rather then a list. However, deleting outright it is like writing about an aircraft, but not mentioning its engines or construction materials. Fliega 15:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Very few software articles contain full lists of their dependencies and libraries. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This information is better located on external, dedicated sites. The same goes for the huge collection of aircraft, which i've left for now because it was de-listified. However, if this article is ever going to get a GA rating it must try to avoid sending readers to sleep with large lists of facts and statistics which hold little intrinsic value. Chris Cunningham 15:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the de-listing concept, but FlightGear is a special case when it comes to its content. Keep in mind FlightGear is not strictly software, it is a project, and its focus is on a release of code, not some sort of software title in the traditional sense. Fliega 15:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that this is a valuable distinction. MAME is a "project" in the sense of recreation / preservation too, but it doesn't contain an inline list of every one of the thousands of titles it supports. Chris Cunningham 15:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The dependencies of the code are not analogous to a emulator supporting a title, but rather the reverse situation. Consider, articles list the OS a program needs to run on- its logical that an article about code list the software it needs. Fliega 16:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And, once again, most software articles mention such dependencies only where particularly pertinent, and generally in passing. You seem to be arguing that FlightGear is more analogous to a distribution than an application. I really can't see how this is the case. Chris Cunningham 18:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the analogy, the dependent code is pertinent to the FlightGear project, code releases, and application. As you point out, there are cases where software articles mention dependencies- this article would be such a case. Fliega 19:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Anyway, at least it isn't just a huge list now. Thanks for your work in expanding this article. We'll see what review picks up in the future. Chris Cunningham 23:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you... your candor and patience in the matter is duly appreciated. Fliega 01:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Add more screenshots

I think we need to add more screenshots from various versions of the program to show a better history of it. Eric Cartman's alter ego (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Force Feedback roadmap

I couldn´t find anything about Force Feedback. Is there any roadmap to implement this feature? 84.173.206.130 (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I´m also intrested in a touring motorglider model. 84.173.221.106 (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

SDL

"Finally, Simple DirectMedia Layer is a software library which is used for compiling." SDL is not a build tool - presumably they use it to handle user-input...? -Wootery (talk) 10:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving the picture Gallery

Do you think it might be okay if we moved the picture gallery to another page? It seems to take up a lot of space.--Yoonsikp (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I think it is overkill. Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries. The images should be on the Wikimedia Commons, anyway. We can just link to the category over there. We just have to choose which ones to keep in the article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So how would we start? Not really good with wikipedia :P--Yoonsikp (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll just remove it now. All the screenshots can be viewed when you follow the Commons template in the external links section. The other sims don't have many images on their articles: X-Plane (simulator), Microsoft Flight Simulator.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

media license = ?

The article and the home page clearly state that the source code is licensed under the GPL. Nobody says nothing about the media. Which license is it under?