>
> 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 thought the debate closed.
The very good description of the situation by Vivian ( and best of the
best
with a Shakespeare introduction :) ).
He was expressing in detail how to do and what to do.
I worry there won't be a pilot in the "Flighgear" plane, though Vivian
could be the one.
Renk,
How could you say "you're both not even users of the scheme" ?
Yes i had at the beginning done some screenshots with the Dome project, the
period when i could use it without breaking others features.
I was, even, able to combine the Effects with the dome by unlocking the
conditions. To me the project was promising , until you engage to develop
deeply.
Yes, right now, i do use Rembrandt for screenshots the effect/results are
the
best we may get with Flighgear. light and shadow are amazing.
Renk,
You pretend to be experienced and worry we don't use your know how, Emilian
is
experienced and you rejected his know how.
Would you say everybody but you is stupid.
Renk,
How could you say the Shadows system has come after ALS ?
Looking at the history of Flightgear, i can notice the Shadows system was
a
feature in the old time, i have got from GRTUX's database ( inherited)
some
old snapshot with Shadows.
With the OSG arrival that old feature did not longer worked.
So, Rembrandt is only coming to follow the original features content, it
could have been offered as default within flightgear as soon it was
considered
right.
It is right since months ago.
It is said "Rembrandt cannot be run on some GPU", yes it depends on the
OpenGL
compliance, and a minimum of memory is necessary ( for better information
refer to fredb instructions ).
The modification to the aircraft to get it working is minor, i had to
update
our hangar it took only 1 hour to update our hangar (21 officials models +
12
non official ).
Only the object with transparencies are involved, easy to find.
Since it offer a nice real Light , i implemented it , in cockpit/
instrument
and outside with landing light , it took time to understand the process,
one
day ( slow brain ) , and only 5 hours to update the Hangar.
The time required was minor compared to the time spent when i had to
introduce
the shader effect ( one week and more).
All the best
Ahmad (Henri)
On 27 April 2013 09:10, Renk Thorsten <thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> * Thorsten
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
--
Best regards,
Henri, aka Alva
Official grtux hangar maintainer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
