> Basically I see two different approaches in FlightGear Scenery world > (aside from a few minor blends): > 1.) Focus all ressources on one common World Scenery. > 2.) Build pools of individual (and sometimes even contradicting) > scenarios - also known as the M$FS way. > > It's obvious that 1.) was the one I tried to accomplish. I was > convinced that, as a non-commercial OpenSource project, we could do > "better". Anyhow it's obvious that 2.) draws magnitudes more developer > ressource and the gap is steadily increasing. I've even watched people > explicitly trying to persuade/convince contributors _not_ to contribute > to common, collaborative Scenery ressources - and, what's really sad, > not one single voice objected. > > That's why I consider my approach as a failure, maybe not generally, > but at least in FlightGear land because apparently there's no critical > mass of fertile soil to make it grow even half as fast as it could. > For a long time I thought this would be a failure of "The FlightGear > Community", but the more I think about it, the more I'm getting to the > conclusion that there is simply no community in FlightGear Scenery > land. Either there's a fundamental difference in the understanding of > the term "community" - or 95 % of those who are repetitively exercising > this term are just a crowd of narcissists ....
I guess as far as scenery goes, I certainly qualify as an outsider, so here are my two cents. As far as my experience goes, this sums it up quite nicely: > Just for the record, that's one of the common, big, but most avoidable > mistakes: "Submitting when it's finished". Since my first contact with Flightgear a few years ago, I have never witnessed that world scenery has grown more detailed. Objects - yes, but for me personally landclass and elevation resolution matters much more. Basically, during my whole Flightgear life, the world scenery has always been what it is. In my first year, I've occasionally asked when new world scenery will be available. Afterwards, I've given up. I was (and still am) glad that more and more custom scenery patches appeared. It is very obvious to me that this approach has its limits, there are errors and seams visible - but all in all, it enabled me to pick the areas where I like to fly and enjoy that while waiting for the real thing. Whenever that may happen. I read many forum posts, I follow this list - and yet I have zero idea what the status of the world scenery is, I couldn't even guess when, say, Europe might be moved consistently to CORINE data, I have no idea what the current issues in scenery development are. And I had no idea about your frustration right until reading your post. And I required your two follow-up posts to understand just what the issue is. Just maybe, there is a communication issue involved here (but let's also allow for the possibility that I am just too dumb). A community doesn't usually organize spontaneously in my experience - it has also something to do with the flow of information and ideas, with social skills (there are some people I enjoy interacting with, there are others with which I can interact if necessary) and last a good bit of luck to find the right person at the right time. Maybe, if there'd be a clear perspective for contributions to world scenery to appear, developers would be less likely to do their own patches of the planet. Maybe not. Having said that, I would also very much like to thank you for the work you have done. I don't understand enough of the details to fully appreciate it, but I do know that it is crucial for all bits of scenery I like. And I woul like to make it very clear that me being grateful for, say, Pacific Northwest Scenery doesn't take away my appreciation for your work. > I really feel a strong manpower in FG on aircrafts, on shaders and > weather items, And I wonder where that feeling comes from, because despite trying to get forum users interested in joining in weather-creation work (or texturing), I have the feeling that this has basically failed. The situation I observe is not really different from what Martin describes - the development of the weather system rests on a few (at times seriously overworked) individuals and there doesn't seem to be a pool of manpower to be tapped if needed. Being a theoretical physicist in real life, this is no different from work, so I don't really mind that mode of development so much. Best, * Thorsten ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
