Thorsten, What I really, really hate in FlightGear's last years developement, is how the ego of some people involved (yes, I think that's include me as well) seems to make things and discussions more and more difficult. And this discussion shows it again.
But maybe it is only the translation from german to english and from english to german we both have to do make things here difficult. But well, the whole discussion was more or less my fault- I have been warned off-list that I will open a can of worms with my posting....*sigh* Again: I criticed NOT YOU as person, simply the way what happend with the shaders, and especially the atmospheric shader. As you was the main developer behind the atmospheric shader, you was being adressed. So no reason the get polemic or arrogant: >I wrote 'scenery and models', I did not write 'trees'. ... > Which of these two statements did you find hard to understand? However, I simply I had the feeling that I somewhere read that there has been a more simple way proposed to have your shader working together along with the other shaders. Don't worry - I really, really understand, that you have a different view on it, and my proposal to get a "middle thing" isn't a good solution. That's why I asked, and that's why I got clear and understandable answers here- unfortunately just not from you. You have to know that beeing involved myself since 2006, (more than as a simple "stupid" user) I think I'm allowed to say what I think what is mabye not right. That doesn't mean of course I'm right at the end. That doesn't mean that really everyone thinks so. But different to a closed project, in FGFS different views, even from outside, are sometimes wished and accepted. But something like that...: > And what's the relevance of this? I want plenty of things... Someone > with GLSL knowledge to explain things to me so that I can get rid of > trial and error based development for starters. Someone who learned > digital image processing to help me with cloud texture extraction. > Someone who flies his own plane to take GPL compatible semi-ortho-images > to > create textures and to take aerial images of some rare cloud types. I > want > people to pick up some of the space capabilities of Flightgear, > create orbiting AI model code and some more spacecraft so that we could > fly > to ISS. Do I get any of these things? No, I don't, and I'm guessing > there > is a reason every no. ... could have written in one short sentence: "Sorry, some things goes behind my knowledge, that's why it isn't there. If anyone interested to help, you are welcome!" or anything like that. or "There is currently no technical way in the moment to do so". Accetable by everyone, even by me ;-). But flooding with texts, especially in a manner that others make looks like a dumbhead makes you look like being ignorant and shows some strange attitude to some. And at the end we wonder we have it again, that people come up and say "Uh, there is now way to contribute....; there are all feeling like elites..; the don't listen to users; ... etc, etc. I hope you understand, then at least that's exactly the feeling I got here with your replies, and I hope that wasn't that what you wanted. > Everything should be as realistic as possible, but under no circumstances > should it lead to a loss of framerate, ... Sorry, that's the goal of every flight simulator: realistic as possible, perfomance friendly as possible. Only knowledge and hardware is the limit here, and this limit is pushed further every year. > In essence, your suggestion is to 'dumb down' flightgear and not to > offer any features which are not completely integrated with everything > else because the user may not be willing to accept that not everything > works with everything else. Sounds like a bad idea to me. We are not a > commercial enterprise, and we play by different rules. Trying to adopt > commercial development strategies will only make us fail. Again: my whole statements was from users point of view. FlightGear was based on the idea to be an alternative to MSFS for many reasons. Since then, up to this day we are being measured with MSFS and other flight simulations, commercial or free. The good thing is, and there I agree, that we aren't bound on earning money, so we can make things without the risque beeing not that successful with. That makes us indeed strong! But that doesn't mean that we should forget users- Because the users from today are the developers from tomorrow and NO, in this context I don't mean problems with framerates here. Users and heir contributions are our gain, not money. But you also wouldn't have made such a statement if you wouldn't have forget that FGFS is used in some research and even commercial projects, and that's even one goal of our project. I hope you are aware that under "Users" are not only meant pimpled teenagers with a bag of crisps sitting in front of their computers. While our big feature is seen as to be customizable as possible, Framerates, Stability and Usability is not always seen like that. In fact we have companies and research groups among our users which uses FGFS for their needsand to say it short: they would like to use our latest features, but missing compatibility and usability prevents that often. As they don't give us any money, we simply could completely ignore them - or see their problems and wishes as feature requests. And that's exactly what I have wished: that you see such complains more as a feature request and not as a personal attack on your work. But yes, I should have written it more like a feature request, as I should be aware that I could be misunderstood, so I'm sorry here. > Look, this is silly. You can't seriously take offence because someone > doesn't enjoy the same things as you do. I would hope that you spend a > lot of time to create a good 3d model because you enjoy it and because > there are others who enjoy it. Why should you feel mistreated because > there are users who don't? Should I feel offended because not every > single user uses Advanced Weather? Some don't like it for various > reasons and could do without it, and that's cool with me. Great that you at least understand! Replace 3d-model with your shader and clouds work and you see what I meant. Just to remember what you wrote: "For information, my priority list is very much focused on looking out of the cockpit and seeing the scenery" My focus is trying(!) to create an accurate aircraft as possible, this includes the interior and the use of shaders as well like the fdm, though of course there are limitations in many ways and often needs some compromise. Some other has priority on beeing as easy as possible, or being as customizable as possible, or... etc, etc, etc. But I can't deny, I think no one can, that it is simply dissapointing, if you work pretty hard on something and at the end you have to see that it only works for some configurations, though you would have expected something different. I don't take offence because someone doesn't enjoy the same things as me, but I expect from this person that he respects that I have another favour, and when I come up with this, that he doesn't see it as a personal attack and it ends all in a big strong discussion. > ... Emilian favours this design, as it is maintenance friendly, my own > ideas are more along the lines that each shader should be optimized, > because that may give another 20-30% performance we'll see where this > ends. Emilian explained that to me off-list. And I had discussions off-list with others about he whole topic, and we agree that the current design is a mess, sorry to say that. I can't tell if there is really 20-30% better perfomance with your solution, but I do see maintenance friendly at such complex things like shaders as a gain equal to 20-30% better perfomance. > Let's get this straight - some people are creating an own viewer outside > > Flightgear because I haven't converted shaders fast enough to the > atmospheric scattering scheme and you can't have your favourite shader > along with the scheme? No, you misunderstood: but simply some people are creating an own viewer outside Flightgear as they see no really a system behind the design any more and try to solve this in their own way. It is their right and comparable with your decision to create an own weather system. > There's a problem, you (and others) want a quick and simple solution, > but there is none There is no chance for a quick and simple solution any more, that's true. There had been as I heard by those "others".... ( and especially I don't want to know how much could have been coded in the time of this useless discussion ;-)) And of course I do want a simple and quick solution- everyone wants! ;-) But I do more want at the end to have a GOOD solution, a good SYSTEM, as friendly to use as possible. And so much as I do understand your solution- and this is more than you think!- I'm not sure if your solution is the right way. But that's all my opinion, and the real problem behind all this is: you have to accept this different to yours opinion! And this was now really my very last reply to it all, as I really have said everything, and lost again 1 hour which I maybe could have better used for modeling something. Heiko still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
