Thorsten
> Sent: 27 April 2013 08:11
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
>
> > That said - I don't see why an Atmospheric Light Scattering scheme
> > should have embedded in it some ac modelling stuff.
> > That serves to diverge the schemes. And it makes it look like ALS is
> > your private sandbox.
>
> Offering new and different options is the whole point of having a
different
> scheme. What would be the point of having Rembrandt if it were to look
just
> as the default scheme and would not offer novel options? You think these
> options should be limited to the sky (and terrain?) - fine, I don't, I
think they
> may well affect models, trees, all the visuals.
>
> Since Emilian accused me of wanting to rule FG anyway - just what would
> happen if I would start editing some new effects also into Rembrandt or
> default? Or if I would decide myself how Basic Weather needs to interact
> with ALS? Let me give you the answer: I would get the same accusations 10
> times over - and (at least partially) rightfully so. It's not my call to
make - it's
> up to the maintainers of Basic Weather (Rembrandt,...) to decide what to
> include and how. There's simply no pleasing some people - if I introduce
new
> effect in my framework, you complain about diverging schemes, if I would
do
> it everywhere you would be complaining that I can't simply make such
> decisions on my own. So in your book, I just shouldn't introduce any novel
> effects at all unless you approve? (You didn't say this, but it pretty
much
> follows.) You can't be serious.
>
> Last time I checked, I designed or ported something like 95% of the code
of
> ALS. Stuart did some work on the trees, Lauri did the original skydome
shader
> before haze, Emilian contributed insights, corrections and tests to the
ported
> model ubershader - and that's basically it. So I guess that makes me the
> current maintainer of the scheme.
>
> What you (and Henri) are really saying here that you guys should really
have
> a vote on where the scheme is going without investing work into it (and
> ironically enough, you're both not even users of the scheme), and you
> should even be able to overrule my own judgement on what is important
> and how things get implemented and be able to tell me what I should be
> working on first. Just since when did we start doing things that way in
FG?
>
> I fully accept that decisions which affect other subsystems, potentially
> disable them or require substantial action by others must be discussed and
> voted on, and that coding e.g. an explicit preference for one weather
system
> over the other is a bad thing. So if the choice were that we can have
either
> Rembrandt or ALS, we'd need to have a discussion and a vote. But that's
not
> the case.
>
> Thus, you don't get to overrule me if I consider implementing wind
effects
> more useful than the wake effect. You can bring up your case, you can ask
> nicely, we can have a discussion, but as long as you expect me to do the
> work, you'll have to live with my decisions and wait till your request
reaches
> the top of my to-do list (in the case of the wake, I have already stated
that
> it's on the to-do list - same with the rainbow). You can do it yourself if
it has a
> higher priority for you (in which case I offered help and expect the
customary
> amount of coordination with what I'm doing, same as if I would start
working
> on one of your aircraft), you can convince anyone else to do it (in which
case
> I'll also help), and that's how it works everywhere else in FG. If I want
a
> particular feature for an aircraft, I ask nicely and try to be convincing,
I don't
> go around claiming the aircraft is broken every time. Why is this mode
not
> acceptable to you?
>
> You know, I don't want any special treatment here - I just want that the
same
> standards are applied to me which apply to other people (specifically also
you
> and Emilian). And I can't see that in what you say - I'm always held to
much
> stricter standards.
>
> Vivian, for all your eloquence, I don't get the impression that all this
is the
> real sticking point - what is _really_ bugging you here?
>
> You're not a user of ALS, I haven't seen it on in any of your screenshots.
> You're not affected personally by anything I do. I told you I will put the
> rainbow back and I will implement the wave, and we're in the middle
> between release periods, just when it's officially time to introduce new
> features with the idea to consolidate towards the release. So there can't
be
> any serious concern at this point that users might not get to see and
> appreciate your work sufficiently. You argue against the hypothetical
case
> that you might potentially have to adjust your aircraft for ALS even when
this
> is not factually the case.
>
> At every opportunity, you speak up against the way Advanced Weather is
> done. You implemented, together with Emilian, an environment for the
> water shader which explicitly favours Basic Weather over Advanced
> Weather, in spite of the fact that I documented the lighting model of
> Advanced Weather in the readme, outlined it to you on this list, again in
a
> mail to you and Emilian and coded a shader which explicitly demonstrates
my
> control property approach which avoids this. When I handed over the code
> of ALS to you and Emilian, you did nothing with it for half a year, and
> afterwards criticized forever that I implemented it the wrong way.
>
> I'm trying very hard to come up with a charitable explanation not
involving
> that you do it just to put stumbling blocks to whatever I do, but I am
running
> out of those.
>
> You accept that it's perfectly fine if Fred introduces new features in
> Rembrandt and modify your aircraft according to novel standards, but you
> have concerns all over the place when ALS (which is much less of a radical
> change) is concerned. Pretty much every novel feature by ALS has been
> criticized by you or Emilian as unwanted, badly implemented, breaking
things
> ... In several cases, it was pretty apparent you (or Emilian) hadn't even
> looked in any detail through the shader you were opposed to and argued
> just based on assumptions. You frequently argue on behalf of users - but I
> hang out in the forum and have all the discussion with users (much more
> than you do), and I think I get a pretty clear picture of what the average
user
> is about.
>
> I don't get it. What is the real problem?
>
> I'm not asking you to like what I do. I'm just asking for some basic
mutual
> respect and peaceful co-existence. Can't you be content with me not taking
> away any of what you like in FG? Do you have to oppose features nobody
> asks you to use? Can't you stand the idea that there is an option which
works
> different from what you like? We can take this off-list if you like, but
I'm
> really at a point where I can no longer treat this as a misunderstanding
and
> lack of information flow, I have explained too much to believe in this any
> more.
>
> Finally, I acknowledge gratefully that you have always been very polite
and
> civilized in discussing with me, which can't be said for some hate-mails
I've
> received from others off-list.
>
What is the real problem? I've got a little list:
I don't want to open the Devel List to find yet another storm with
Thorsten at the centre of it.
I don't want to download fgdata/fg/sg to find that I have to spend
hours fixing up my work. I'd rather get on with my own stuff.
I don't want to download fg/sg to find that it won't build.
I don't want to download fgdata to find things which "used to work".
I don't want to force users to choose between a nice atmospheric
effects or shadows, or anything else.
I don't want to force developers to develop ac for one
scheme/framework rather than another.
I don't want to have frame-rates of less than 40 and/or jittery.
And finally - I feel really strongly about this one:
I don't want anyone to feel that they have to leave the project
because of acrimonious discussions on this list or anywhere else. It has
happened only rarely, but I regret each and every one.
I know this is unrealistic, but we should all be striving along these lines.
I'm horrified that you have received hate-mail. This is only a flight sim
for goodness sake. We have a long tradition here of friendly and orderly
debate. I would caution you against the forum: it is a self-selected cut of
our users. Some seem decidedly odd. If you can identify any of the
perpetrators, then I'm sure that we can take steps to ban them from this
list and the forum.
Vivian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt
New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service
that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your
browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic
and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
