> 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 :-) ) - s
>> 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, co
> 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 renderin
> 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 t
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 outd
> 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 re
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 _o
> 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 priori
> 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 perf
> 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 serve
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
> 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
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
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 rese
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 o
> 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 t
-devel] The state of things in Flight Gear
> 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
> s
> 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 getti
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
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
