Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on December 05, 2006 07:16 AM
1. While it is fair to point out that the article was only about Flight Gear and not a comparison, I feel that the article should have included at least an acknowledgement of the other options that are out there, especially when the article starts out with a gushing description as it does. Furthermore, while I don't expect an article on Linux.com to be about an MS product, I do expect the article to mention the product that is most widely regarded as the standard in its genre. I would similarly expect an enterprise messaging article to mention Exchange and an enterprise database article to mention Oracle. Get real, indeed.
2. yep x-plane is cool, if you want to spend the money. This is a point that I tried to make in the original post. To flight simulator users, it is no longer about the money. These users are spending big bucks on wheels and pedals and all sorts of stuff. To the flight simulator crowd realism is of critical importance and graphics and performance go a VERY long way in this respect. Spending less than $100 on a good flight sim application is nothing at all. Lack of realism, even in a free application, is undesirable at best and that is why people actually prefer to spend money on X-Plane MS Flight Simulator rather than take advantage of a free product that runs on all platforms and should be far more mature for a 10 year old project. People are voting their preference with theiwallet and you would rather deny that preference than address it? That seems illogical to me.
3. In the true spirit of Open Source software, help make it better. Acknowledge shortcomings as such and then work towards eliminating them. Denying that they so plainly exist simply means that Flight Gear will continue to have poor quality graphics for another ten years! Discussing the shortcomings openly will provide a better opportunity for change. That discussion is getting involved and hopefully will make it better.
4. Fair quality is a reference to the coding. Flight Gear is of fair quality and from a technical aspect it is really very good. However, no one who has looked at or flown MS Fight Simulator or X-Plane would ever deny that the graphic quality and performance of Flight Gear was surpassed by the other product(s) ten years ago.
I'm all about getting real. But, that requires accepting reality, not discarding it and substituting a non-existent ideal.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Second Post
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 05, 2006 07:16 AM2. yep x-plane is cool, if you want to spend the money.
This is a point that I tried to make in the original post. To flight simulator users, it is no longer about the money. These users are spending big bucks on wheels and pedals and all sorts of stuff. To the flight simulator crowd realism is of critical importance and graphics and performance go a VERY long way in this respect. Spending less than $100 on a good flight sim application is nothing at all. Lack of realism, even in a free application, is undesirable at best and that is why people actually prefer to spend money on X-Plane MS Flight Simulator rather than take advantage of a free product that runs on all platforms and should be far more mature for a 10 year old project. People are voting their preference with theiwallet and you would rather deny that preference than address it? That seems illogical to me.
3. In the true spirit of Open Source software, help make it better. Acknowledge shortcomings as such and then work towards eliminating them. Denying that they so plainly exist simply means that Flight Gear will continue to have poor quality graphics for another ten years! Discussing the shortcomings openly will provide a better opportunity for change. That discussion is getting involved and hopefully will make it better.
4. Fair quality is a reference to the coding. Flight Gear is of fair quality and from a technical aspect it is really very good. However, no one who has looked at or flown MS Fight Simulator or X-Plane would ever deny that the graphic quality and performance of Flight Gear was surpassed by the other product(s) ten years ago.
I'm all about getting real. But, that requires accepting reality, not discarding it and substituting a non-existent ideal.
#