11.02.2008, 19:49
In the past, I had put out the idea of getting together some type of review board that can recommend this sort of thing.
Example: There are say, 20 people on such a board. each has a general knowledge of the subject of aviation in WWII, and would be more specifically knowledgeable in particular aspects of various aircraft. They would fly a virtual plane, and get an overall reaction, and those with specific knowledge of that plane would explain to the whole why, or why not, the tweaks were more or less "right" or "wrong".
In this way, the idea of a reviewing body that has credentials (members would need to back up their thoughts on an FM with evidence enough to make his or her point) and could be trusted would be established. A "seal of approval" from such a group would be a good indicator as to whether an FM was good or bad
I also have suggested talking to the 1% Team guys who mod CFS3 and asking how they go about it
The whole idea is to make a reliable baseline and hopefully a quality standard for modding FM
Things like "feel" and anecdotal evidence are a good portion of what we might have commonly used as basis for FM. As long as that is a plausible set of circumstances that does not contradict flight data and the standpoint that an FM tweak based on that evidence is closer to reality than it might be without the tweak, then I see no issue
I think some way of reviewing and testing by a third party would be ideal
Razor makes a great point- even Oleg and RRG made mistakes, and I think he hits the nail on the head in his assesment.
I think that possibly if there was a third party reviewing what they did- not part of the dev team and not under employ of either- that if somebody had say "Hey now, this isn't right, and here's the reasons I feel that way", some of the larger errors could have been avoided
I feel a lack of a certain amount of circumspection was present- people were too close to the subject to be truly objective
I see an opportunity here to present that objectivity
Example: There are say, 20 people on such a board. each has a general knowledge of the subject of aviation in WWII, and would be more specifically knowledgeable in particular aspects of various aircraft. They would fly a virtual plane, and get an overall reaction, and those with specific knowledge of that plane would explain to the whole why, or why not, the tweaks were more or less "right" or "wrong".
In this way, the idea of a reviewing body that has credentials (members would need to back up their thoughts on an FM with evidence enough to make his or her point) and could be trusted would be established. A "seal of approval" from such a group would be a good indicator as to whether an FM was good or bad
I also have suggested talking to the 1% Team guys who mod CFS3 and asking how they go about it
The whole idea is to make a reliable baseline and hopefully a quality standard for modding FM
Things like "feel" and anecdotal evidence are a good portion of what we might have commonly used as basis for FM. As long as that is a plausible set of circumstances that does not contradict flight data and the standpoint that an FM tweak based on that evidence is closer to reality than it might be without the tweak, then I see no issue
I think some way of reviewing and testing by a third party would be ideal
Razor makes a great point- even Oleg and RRG made mistakes, and I think he hits the nail on the head in his assesment.
I think that possibly if there was a third party reviewing what they did- not part of the dev team and not under employ of either- that if somebody had say "Hey now, this isn't right, and here's the reasons I feel that way", some of the larger errors could have been avoided
I feel a lack of a certain amount of circumspection was present- people were too close to the subject to be truly objective
I see an opportunity here to present that objectivity