On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 23:16 +0000, Martin Spott wrote: > Depends on your very individual point of view. In contrast, I was > confirmed that providing a seamless Terrain sounds quite appealing.
I agree completely with you on this issue. > > Instead, having to assemble Scenery from a lot of different places if > you're after a bigger chunk, especially if these chunks don't fit > together properly, doesn't attract everyone. Neither does the public > impression of "why the hell does each of these fellows play in > everyone's private sandboxes instead of collaborating on fixing their > most pressing issues together". Indeed. Here's why we played in our own sandboxes: I wanted to fly over my country with better looking scenery, and I damned well made it so. I was inspired by the custom France scenery and at the time I started to work on it I wasn't even aware of any similar project. Also, being a programmer myself and knowing how much I hate to write documentation, I made sure and documented every step of said process hoping it will be of some use to other potential developers. Initially I have found said scenery to be of subpar quality and only shared it with Emilian, a fellow countryman and developer of IAR80. However I have reached the conclusion that other users might want to fly over this particular chunk and shared it. I did not want in any way, shape or form to take the spotlight from your project, which I agree would be a better addition to Flightgear. Plus the fact that I used the same set of tools that you and the custom-scenery crew provides and without which it would have been impossible to generate any terrain. > > Anyhow I _do_ acknowledge a certain benefit for a certain 'type' of > user, but I'd like to emphasize that this benefit doesn't necessarily > scale to the entire (potential) user base. > Where you see 'types' of users, I only see users. Most of these 'independently' developed scenery projects take advantage of OSM data, which is why they are released under CC by SA and also the reason they won't get integrated in the official distribution. However this does not mean that it is incompatible with Flightgear or that users can't enjoy it while waiting for a seamless integrated world terrain. I have only the highest expectations from your project, however in order to get many people involved and avoiding the same lone wolf approach, please use the wiki and provide more documentation and your experience to the community. Otherwise you will only see more 'flawed' terrain appear sooner rather than later. (this I might add is a characteristic of open development which should be regarded as it is rather than fought tooth and nail). Instead of endless discussions over this non-issue, time is better spent talking about the technical aspects involved in making Flightgear better. Best regards, Adrian > Cheers, > Martin. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel