I think it's grossly unfair to mix these issues: Spaceflight requires
to essentially write a space simulator. One of my first statements in
the
forum was:
Orbital flights opens a whole new can of worms besides the need for
different rendering - completely different physics, completely
From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi
To provide the context: I wrote the above in response to pictures of Mars
(from Celestia) being posted and talk about Apollo missions, i.e. having
interplanetary missions in mind. (Jon actually knows that, because I
explained it later in the thread :-) ) -
It's a dead end time when someone who had asked for changes leaves
before that changes comes because it not comes too long and that makes
some issue area related development impossible.
(...)
If that dead end will come seventy years after now then for sure I had
missed the point. If not then
From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi [mailto:]
I think it's grossly unfair to mix these issues: Spaceflight requires
to essentially write a space simulator. One of my first statements in the
forum was:
Orbital flights opens a whole new can of worms besides the need for
different rendering -
Slavutinsky Victor wrote:
It's a dead end time when someone who had asked for changes leaves
before that changes comes [...]
People have left the FlightGear project for various reasons I'm not
going to explain here and now. _But_ leaving the project entirely just
for the simple reason that
People have left the FlightGear project for various reasons I'm not
going to explain here and now. _But_ leaving the project entirely just
for the simple reason that _other_ project members don't perform at the
rate as _you_ expect them to do is certainly not one of the most
honourable
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Slavutinsky Victor wrote:
Occasional dropouts and slowing to 1fps and things as that. More and
more bugs with every change what's harder and harder to eliminate, not
linearly, squarely harder. Dramatical lowering of common development
rate, coming to very outdated
Guys, I had made my conclusions. It seems I am leaving.
On my view situation in FG is:
1) Closed upper society have intention to make profit by Flight Gear
finally, maybe have some little profit right now.
2) Intention to include someone else in that society is absented in it
of course.
3) Plans
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 13:17 +0400, Slavutinsky Victor wrote:
Guys, I had made my conclusions. It seems I am leaving.
On my view situation in FG is:
1) Closed upper society have intention to make profit by Flight Gear
finally, maybe have some little profit right now.
2) Intention to
I'm afraid that you wrongly interpret 'being busy doing other things'
with 'unwilling to help'. So far everybody who has made valuable
contributions has been welcomed by everybody. And depending on the time
someone has/is willing to reserver for FlightGear there's always a
chance of getting
Perhaps expecting a flight simulator to be changed overnight to deal with
the problems of orbital flight was rather too optimistic.
Alan
-Original Message-
From: Slavutinsky Victor
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 11:48 AM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re:
Perhaps expecting a flight simulator to be changed overnight to deal with
the problems of orbital flight was rather too optimistic.
Problem was not in changing of others, of simulator without me.
Complexity was no one had wanted to explain me how it organized in
inners to help me solve that
Slavutinsky Victor wrote:
Problem was not in changing of others, of simulator without me.
Complexity was no one had wanted to explain me how it organized in
inners to help me solve that tasks personally.
I'm pretty certain you're under-estimating the effort required to
explain the details of
Le 27/07/2011 12:48, Slavutinsky Victor a écrit :
I'm afraid that you wrongly interpret 'being busy doing other things'
with 'unwilling to help'. So far everybody who has made valuable
contributions has been welcomed by everybody. And depending on the time
someone has/is willing to reserver
On Wednesday, July 27, 2011 04:04:09 AM Slavutinsky Victor wrote:
Moreover, that explanations not provided not for me only but for anyone.
It's open source but way it open it can not be developed by ones for
whom it seems to be open. That's the real problem what I can not solve,
and, I
Problem was not in changing of others, of simulator without me.
Complexity was no one had wanted to explain me how it organized in
inners to help me solve that tasks personally.
I'm pretty certain you're under-estimating the effort required to
explain the details of how FlightGear works.
I agree there is always a need for more and better documentation and I
certainly agree that FlightGear is under documented. However; it is not
like we have a complete absence of documentation.
There is a ton of information on the wiki. There is a ton of information
included in the documentation
Hi Vitos,
That's sad. Obviously an old project like FG as its own pace, things
here evolve slowly, most of the time those things move in some cahotic
way rather than an effective and straight way as would a strong and
popular project (like a free operating system or a free web server)...
The lack of internal documentation is an issue for many of not most
open source projects. One reason for this is that it is a big
undertaking to completely document a system of the complexity of FG.
For example I just finished (meaning that it is good enough - not
that it is perfect)
FlightGear is never going to have top down authoritarian leadership
like a large corporation might have. This is good in many ways, but
is also creates challenges in many ways. I often see my roll more as
a facilitator for the efforts of developers who are working on their
own priorities
20 matches
Mail list logo
