Dev Discussion - the FGUK Hangar

31 Aug 2017 22:24 #35357 by thebroons
Dear all devs,

Gonna move this convo into this area to get general feedback. I'd like to see where folks see the Hangar moving into the future, and how that will impact what projects are done and how they're executed.

What are our organizational goals? Do we want the biggest hangar in FG? The best? Do we even care how we stack up viz a viz the FG world?

We have a lot of aircraft. A LOT. Yet we don't have substantially more of a core development group to keep them all up. Which begs the question, do we make a cut? If I knew the answer to the Q above, then this would guide a derivative answer and a path forward. If we want the biggest hangar, then no cut but we have to accept a lower average in quality. If its the best, then we needs to be getting cutting and be brutal about it.

We have (unfortunately) too many aircraft for the bodies we have to work on them, therefore the logical path is to limit the hangar so that the models within are all kept up and functional. My feelings on this are divided, as I have a number of older models I'm fond of that would need to be culled. Perhaps the best solution is to divide the Hangar into "Active" models and "Legacy" models, with only "active" models having a sustained effort to maintain and improve them.

My shoot-from-the-hip feeling is that I'd like to see the "Active" hangar composed of RAF aircraft past and present and much of the civilian aircraft (as there's much less of that). I'd prioritize the civvy stuff on having a SAR or other operational role rather than people pullers. But that's just me.

Having said that, I'm truly interested in how each of the other Devs sees the "Hangar Question"? If you're reading this, you're a dev, so please leave a post!

I went through an exercise to see what my own proclivities (RAF past / present and civil SAR / ES filter) might mean.

It's in a PDF as it would be an ugly post, to be found at the following:
www.dropbox.com/s/u32z6elu153qcqv/FGUK%2...t%20by%20GB.pdf?dl=0

This would cut the public hangar by a little less than 50%, reducing 107 models to 57 for active maintenance. Of course there's a few casualties, and a lil' heartbreak for some that would go under this aegis. Not that I'm saying that this is the final word - I think everyone has to chip in with their own take.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating binning / trashing / deleting anything, merely putting what's not going to be maintained in an archive hangar (The "Boneyard") which would still be available for folks to pick at or resurrect as they see fit. This would be an aside from the "main" hangar of actively maintained projects.

Opinions, gut feelings and aviation desires requested. Get writing!

G

If you lived with my brain you'd begin eviction proceedings...
The following user(s) said Thank You: Avionyx

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

01 Sep 2017 06:51 #35365 by StuartC
The pdf cant be found gary.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

01 Sep 2017 07:47 #35367 by timi
I have similar thoughts about it. I think the whole team should concentrate on a single aircraft at the time with all their skill until a true piece of art comes out and then move on to the next one.

And maybe not even release anything until each member of the team says yes, I'm happy with the result.

And if not happy, then the issues will be fixed until that yes comes out.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

01 Sep 2017 11:47 #35373 by thebroons
Another try for the PDF: www.dropbox.com/s/u32z6elu153qcqv/FGUK%2...t%20by%20GB.pdf?dl=0

Maybe it's better to break this down thus:

1. The goal of FGUK's team is to:

a) Have the biggest hangar
b) Have the best hangar
c) Have a limited hangar of eclectic, well finished models
d) Other (write in)

2. The Hangar is 107 models strong. We should:

a) Keep growing! More is better!
b) Maintain up to an agreed maximum number of models
c) Select only the top models from each grouping and archive the remainder.
d) Other (write in)

3. What is your perception of the number of models that should be maintained by the FGUK group?

a) up to 50
b) up to 75
c) up to 100
d) Other (write in)

4. If you had your free hand to be FGUK Supreme Leader, :P what would go and what would stay?

Keep the comments and discussion coming.

G

If you lived with my brain you'd begin eviction proceedings...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

01 Sep 2017 12:02 #35374 by timi
Personally I don't mind if the hangar has five models
if that helps make them top of the line.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

01 Sep 2017 12:16 #35375 by timi
So less volume and more quality is my take. This way you are more likely
to spend time on difficult issues, and solving them pays dividends to other
aircraft later on as a shorter development time and higher quality.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

01 Sep 2017 12:18 #35376 by StuartC
An example of what we can do collectively was the Mako, it was accepted into the hanger and completely rebuilt from the ground up and re issued in 2 weeks.

The Development arm of FGUK was born to feed the Flight side with a choice of trust worthy, flyable aircraft out of the need for stuff to fly and originally, the lack of stuff that was actually flyable.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

02 Sep 2017 21:34 #35415 by J Maverick 16
Tried to get into the discussion earlier but had little time to really type some words so I'll do now.

I agree that to keep the FGUK Hangar look great then it has to sacrifice a few "oldish" models which haven't been updated in a long time (like ie Stuart's list), but yet keep 'em available in the boneyard to whoever wants to have a look at 'em and maybe wants to give 'em a lil' bit of love.

That said it'd be also nicer to get some more updates on aircrafts which are presently WIP but not in an active state, maybe trying to give people a kind of nice stable version of what has been done so far, that would gather more people's interests in our planes, and maybe asking for further updates in the future if there's a particular interest in that specific models.

Also those Sunday YouTube feedback sessions are quite interesting in the term of what's in the works right now and what to expect from the Hangar in the relatively near future.

But to do that I reckon that the more hands you get working on stuff the better and more things you can work on. That's why I'd like to put my little knowledge available to the community, even if I've already got my hands full of plane and scenery projects. I had and have fun in FGUK a lot and learned lots too, and I guess it's time to give something back at some point ;) .

My two cents..
Mav

Breakin' the sound barrier every day.
Oh God, that's EGOD!
5 YEARS OF FLIGHTGEAR (2012 - 2017)

FG 3.2 - OS X 10.6.8

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.096 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum

PM Mailbox

You are not logged in.

Forum Search

Keyword