Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some community comments
of Scenery development is substantially different from craving for aaah's and oooh's on The Forum after you successfully managed to follow an elaborate and nicely illustrated recipe on how to build FlightGear Terrain. Hehe, I'm glad that I managed to catch at least one reader by putting this trap into my posting ;-) To be precise, the above wording was chosen pretty much deliberately and was meant to serve as a test for checking if there are still readers on this list being versed in applying some specific, 'traditional' behavioural patterns. Ralf Gerlich convinced me to make my intention known As a conclusion I'd say the test has been functional :-) and it's been an interesting and insightful debate. Admittedly, I have no idea what a 'traditional behavioural pattern' is (especially when moving in an international community, I find that the meaning of 'tradition' is very much dependent on cultural context). So I also have no idea what it could mean to be versed in applying it. So what are you trying to say here in plain words? Were you interested if you would be able to start a flamewar by throwing in a provocation? Were you interested if an implied insult would be perceived as one and by whom? Were you interested if you could get away with provocative wording without any comment? In any case, it seems to me that sociological experiments are not what a developer's discussion list is for. And in case you were wondering - it is considered unethical in the scientific community to conduct an experiment without the consent of the participants. Since I am not the owner of moderator of the list, what follows is (unfortunately) my personal request only, but I would kindly ask you to stop using this list for any future tests of similar nature and rather help building a pleasant working atmosphere for everyone involved to get this other project called 'Flightgear' improved. If you are seriously interested in sociology, I am sure there are forums and lists for that available. Cheers, * Thorsten -- Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any company that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how to best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information secure and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some community comments
Martin Spott wrote: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote: This sort of Scenery development is substantially different from craving for aaah's and oooh's on The Forum after you successfully managed to follow an elaborate and nicely illustrated recipe on how to build FlightGear Terrain. Hehe, I'm glad that I managed to catch at least one reader by putting this trap into my posting ;-) To be precise, the above wording was chosen pretty much deliberately and was meant to serve as a test for checking if there are still readers on this list being versed in applying some specific, 'traditional' behavioural patterns. Ralf Gerlich convinced me to make my intention known As a conclusion I'd say the test has been functional :-) and it's been an interesting and insightful debate. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any company that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how to best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information secure and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some community comments (was: Scenery Corner)
Thorsten wrote: I also find it rather interesting to read something about the 'invisible' work behind the scenery - thank you for letting us know. It's sometimes difficult to appreciate the work that is not directly seen, and it helps a lot if you tell us. Thanks for the hard work. However, there is one sentence in your descriptions which I did not like, because it expresses a sentiment which I do not like at all about the Flightgear community. Please let me take the time to explain. The sentence I mean is This sort of Scenery development is substantially different from craving for aaah's and oooh's on The Forum after you successfully managed to follow an elaborate and nicely illustrated recipe on how to build FlightGear Terrain. I don't know for a fact what you want to imply, but it reminds me of something for example Vivian expressed a while ago with regard to judging cockpits by visual detail. Vivian wrote: I would suggest that as such it has little value for a Flight Sim such as ours which values accuracy above all else. Bit of fun for the forum though. Let me now speak more to the audience at large, rather than to Martin personally... In both statements I read the following ideas (I don't know if you literally meant that - but that's what came across) * while the mailinglist is for real work, the forum is just for playing around * consequently, while the forum can be impressed by cheap tricks and eye candy, the 'real' development community cares about more important things such as accuracy Let me take a virtual needle and deflate the claims a bit. Until recently, Flightgear's idea of a weather change was that pressure, wind and visibility instantly jump from one value to another. Hardly what I would call accuracy. Doing it differently by means of an interpolation isn't even technically complicated (my 1/d weighted routine was 40 lines or so) or would require terrible computing power - there was just nobody sufficiently interested before 2.0.0 came out. Or, as Emmanuel Baranger has pointed out repeatedly, the fact the JSBSim planes can frequently land on water can hardly be called accurate. I could go on, but I think my point is clear - the Flightgear development community doesn't value accuracy as such, but each of you has some notion of where he would like to have more accuracy, and each of you has areas where he doesn't care about increased accuracy (for me, something like convective clouds behaving differently over water than over land is terribly important - having learned to fly gliders, I actually make use of the clues provided by the clouds... On the other hand, instruments not being precisely where they are in the original is not so important to me). So, by what argument can Vivian really claim that she values accuracy higher than I do, when she has been fine with throwing the physics of convective clouds out? I just can't see that any notion of accuracy is better than the other, and I think it's just plain wrong to think that way that one group of people likes accuracy and the other eye candy - visual detail is just another aspect of accuracy. So instead of alienating people who care about modelling, texturing, reflection shaders for exterior models and such things by referring to all that as 'fun for the forum', I think you'd be much better off by encouraging these people to improve the aspects they are interested in and kindly teaching them to value also the aspects which are important to you personally. Frankly, the elitist attitude expressed in such sentences bothers me. I feel much more welcome in the forum - and as a result I usually write much more of my observations, progress reports and ideas in the forum. I also usually get as good response as I get here. So if you only read the list, there's lots of info which you're missing. Doesn't have to bother anyone here - maybe it's just not interesting to you personally. But I think it's be way more useful to encourage people to help (there's plenty to do after all) than to regard them all as not seriously enough. So, now what happens - a few folks get involved, follow the elaborate and nicely illustrate recipe how to do things and actually produce scenery - to hear that what they do is just 'craving for aaah's and oooh's on The Forum', as opposed to 'the real thing'. Well - just how charming and encouraging is that? I happen to enjoy the custom France, custom Ireland and custom Eastern Europe sceneries. For me, an existing imperfect scenery is worth more than a non-existing perfect scenery which I may be able to use in the future. As far as I am concerned, the involved parties have earned their 'aahs and oohs' (so has Martin). So, I would prefer much if we could get around to respecting the work of others more - even if it's not what we are personally most interested. And to kindly teaching each other to
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some community comments
Martin: This is a rather incomplete and therefore, at least to my opinion, pretty unfortunate and unsuitable representation of a certain status quo. It wasn't meant to be a representation of any status quo - it is what you (among others) have been communicating (at least to me, given private feedback I have received off the list also to others) as your picture of the status quo. If that's not what you meant to communicate, that's good - then you know that you can be misunderstood - that's what feedback is for. [...] Still, none of the third party sceneries directly help the goal of adding data to the server or helping fix TerraGear to push out a new World Scenery package [...] Well said ! Right. Now - how to get to the desired outcome? That's what my comment is all about. You are experienced in scenery development. You are quite probably right in assuming that your way of doing things is better than what others come up. Unfortunately, the human mind isn't structured so that people readily accept that and ask you to assign tasks to them. My experience is that newcomers to a project/field/... need to make their own experiments and mistakes first. That's called learning. There's nothing gained by continuously pointing out that they are new, that their work isn't up to existing standards and that they don't do it right. They'll find out eventually by themselves, given time. Speaking from my own experience in making weather - I had to experiment with clouds rotated with Nasal scripts initially. I heard a (subjective) million times that it runs too slow. I knew that, it didn't help me, and I knew I would improve the performance once I was sure what sort of transformation I wanted. What I needed was some encouragement to go on to get me over the frustration of things not working. In the end I settled on (almost) the same technique Stuart already had implemented. Why? Because it worked best. So, could I not have done it 'right' from the start based on Stuart's work? No - because I needed to understand the problem, not just use something I don't understand. And my experience is that after having made their own independent work, people are more ready to collaborate in projects. Before, it would be a one-sided thing - a teacher-student relation - one person knows what is to be done and commands, the other follows the instructions. After some independent work, it becomes more of a collaboration and things get discussed - even if 90% of the input are coming from one party and 10% of the other. But that sort of collaboration is hardly possible if you have been continuously blasting the others as not doing things right before. That sort of collaboration is actually more tedious for me than telling a student what to do. But it's also more fruitful in the long run. The alternative is always a lone wolf approach to your project - which has the advantage that you don't have to compromise on anything. In my experience, you can't expect a collaborative effort to work and expect people to accept that you are right in what you say at the same time (even if you are right - there is psychology as well in a collaboration...). Regardless of what you may think about other people's work, the forum (and regardless of what may or may not even be factually true) - I just fail to see any gain for Flightgear by speaking bad about the forum or other people's work without need. Instead, having to assemble Scenery from a lot of different places if you're after a bigger chunk, especially if these chunks don't fit together properly, doesn't attract everyone. Neither does the public impression of why the hell does each of these fellows play in everyone's private sandboxes instead of collaborating on fixing their most pressing issues together. Yes - so what's wrong about convincing people rather than criticizing them which apparently doesn't seem to get a collaboration done (other than that convincing is usually more complicated, needs some empathy and more time)? Stuart: Sorry to be a pedant, but this isn't quite true. I implemented METAR weather interpolation prior to 2.0.0 in August 2007 using X-values. My apologies for missing that. My excuse is that none of the release binaries I have (0.9.1, 1.9.1 and 2.0.0) shows such behaviour. Vivian: Some more accuracy would be appreciated from you: Vivian is man's name, and a few seconds checking would have told you that this is indeed the case. Well - then I've rather made a fool of myself with regard to the name... I am very sorry. I just looked it up - it really is ambiguous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_(name) As for misrepresenting your views - that's not what I have been trying to do. I have been trying to explain how your views and comments may come across to others, not trying to claim that this is how you think (which I don't know). I'm sure you will agree peer review is not always a pleasant experience, perhaps this colours your view of this
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some community comments (was: Scenery Corner)
Sticking my 2 cents in here , i cant take anything on the forum too seriously , probably just from bad forum experiences overall. The mailing list was always the place I looked for development news , but like Vivian mentioned , that doesn't seem to happen much since the move to Git . Would be nice to see the community back at a central location again , and less divided ;).Meanwhile I'll continue tinkering still think Flightgear is the best open source project. Merry Christmas all . Syd -- Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some community comments
[...] Still, none of the third party sceneries directly help the goal of adding data to the server or helping fix TerraGear to push out a new World Scenery package [...] I think the key word here is directly. No, they may not, even cannot, directly contribute land cover to the data server...and why should they need to anyway? In almost every case everyone has access to that same data and if there is no conflicting license issues (and there are) then it can/should already be in the global db by those maintaining it. However, I believe these projects do contribute to the community and the project by showing people flightgear is capable of having nice looking and accurate base scenery, by taking the time to generate that scenery and provide it freely to everyone for use, and also inspiring further scenery work in that area that does make it into the global scenery db. --- --- Maybe it's not every ones cup of tea, not aligned exactly with their goals or wishesbut I know for a fact a very large number in the community greatly enjoy and appreciate these third party scenery projects. If you don't like it, don't use it, but there is no need for anyone to be a complete douche bag trolling the list critizing other peoples hard work and personal projects. Should we start pissing on third party aircraft as well? Want to piss on Yuriks hard work, or maybe Garys, since the Tu154b and Constellation and others are not in the git package, maybe not licensed to match the git package, and/or just plain better than what's in the git package? There are reasons people may choose to develop as a third party, whether it be scenery, aircraft, or even code. Who are you to criticize them, or make false accusations about how they act, why they do it, or to what level of quality they do it? I have a goal with my own third party Innsbruck scenery project, and have been very open about that goal, the methods and tools I'm using and developing to achieve it, and why I'm doing things the way I'm doing them. If you don't like it, don't use it, no one is forcing you to use it or any other third party project. To criticize other peoples work just because they don't align exactly with your vision, your project, or whatever your real personal reasons..is just petty and plain old fashioned douche baggerygrow up. cheers --Jacob -- Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some community comments
I appreciate the ephithet being hurled in my direction, especially because all we are pointing out is that CORINE data should eventually be part of the land cover database anyways, which may deprecate some (but not necessarily all) of the third-party scenery projects currently being produced, Cheers John -- Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some community comments
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:29 PM, J. Holden stattosoftw...@yahoo.com wrote: I appreciate the ephithet being hurled in my direction, especially because all we are pointing out is that CORINE data should eventually be part of the land cover database anyways, which may deprecate some (but not necessarily all) of the third-party scenery projects currently being produced, Cheers John Exactly. If a project is just terrain generated using whatever data, and that data becomes part of the official DB then that project will have served its purpose and can fade away. In the mean time, while we wait for that day, those projects are very well accepted by the community at large, make flightgear look good, generate interest flightgear and in developing those areas furtherit's a good thing. When the time comes those projects become unnecessary I think you'll find most/all the creators of that scenery will probably happy with that fact...as processing, generating, and distributing very large sets of terrain is quite time consuming and not all that trivial. cheers --Jacob -- Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some community comments
Adrian Musceac wrote: I have only the highest expectations from your project, however in order to get many people involved and avoiding the same lone wolf approach, You're having a valid point here. Anyhow, the lone wolf is in no way an aproach but instead much better charaterized as sort of an unhappy result. Fortunately I'm not _that_ lonesome here: Ralf Gerlich has contributed a lot of work for improving the TerraGear-toolchain which he picked up from Curt and others, Fred Bouvier took care of making the beast run on Windows, John Holden, Christian Schmitt and others are contributing content and I feel like I'm still mostly learning along my way while exploring different tools and techniques. Yet there's still a lot of opportunities to contribute in almost every aspect - just think of the MapServer frontpage which is most certainly the ugliest page in FlightGear land. Having an attractive page, maybe a common layout together with the Scenemodels site, including a blog, a 3D model submission syntax- and rule-checker and other nifty tools would certainly be pretty beneficial to the common effort. There are many things you could think of wrt. supporting collaborative Scenery development Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some community comments
Martin Spott wrote: There are many things you could think of wrt. supporting collaborative Scenery development like on-the-fly map-rendering of landcover-submissions (so people can check how their submission is going to be recived), working towards more different textures to serve various 'new' land cover types (http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/LandcoverDB_CS_Detail), working towards a clever texture selecion schema/algorithm depending on much more seasonal and regional environment settings compared to the current, rather simple summer/winter schema, Just a quick listing from the top of my head at 01:50 AM after a long workday, the number of opportunities is almost indefinite, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some community comments
Hi Thorsten, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote: This sort of Scenery development is substantially different from craving for aaah's and oooh's on The Forum after you successfully managed to follow an elaborate and nicely illustrated recipe on how to build FlightGear Terrain. Hehe, I'm glad that I managed to catch at least one reader by putting this trap into my posting ;-) disregard - I'll post a serious response later, as soon as time permits. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Forrester recently released a report on the Return on Investment (ROI) of Google Apps. They found a 300% ROI, 38%-56% cost savings, and break-even within 7 months. Over 3 million businesses have gone Google with Google Apps: an online email calendar, and document program that's accessible from your browser. Read the Forrester report: http://p.sf.net/sfu/googleapps-sfnew ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some community comments (was: Scenery Corner)
Hi, First all, for some reason, i have been, only recently involved in the Flightgear life, though being an old user of flight simulators. I don't understand, that talk mailinglist versus forum. Each one can find easier to use one , or the other according to his feeling, or according to his resources (know how, computer, communication line ..). When reading both, i just noticed that there could be some stupidity said within the forum, which are the opportunity of long and sterile talk. Though, we can notice some debate, which are there, of a very high quality, unfortunately lost in the common recipient. Here, mailinglist, the talks and and questions are more selective and more accurate. Like Mr Spott said about his silent when is trying to achieve within the FlightGear project, the mailinglist population can be silent about the result. I f there is not any aaah's and oooh's that does not mean the user do not appreciate the quality. Thorsten, may i include some remark about your, here and there, answers. I can be wrong, and i can have misunderstood your mind, if yes, my apologizes. I do understand that you are positioning on the same range of quality, the eye candy, and, the realistic simulation and environment of an aircraft flight behavior. About model: There is a lot of aircraft ( too much) within flightgear which are eye candy perfect, with the full generic effect panoply stuff, unfortunately built with a crazy flight behavior making to laugh any user ( but young player ). Don't an unachieved Aircraft FDM which gives the priority to the flight specifications, and temporary do not process the behavior on ground (though i do not understand the Mr Baranger remark, you refer to), represents and promote the best of the flightgear potential ? Don't the first priority when making an Aircraft is to make a good fdm ? Don't the f16 or Lightning better than the f14 ? to me the answer is: the f14 is not the best one. Flight simulation does not mean special effect movie like. Or, we are talking something else,, which won't take place here. The higher range notation of any model must be first given to the flight behavior, the eye candy notation, is minor, only a packaging. About scenery: When i first got in touch with the Mr Spott 's scenery , i was impressed by the result, which is to me enough. Thus we can have an airborne over terrain which are not fictive. Yes better terrain profile and details ( for instance the st Marteen airport ) , are welcome, however, low details scenery is better than nothing, and i don't mind if i cannot find my house, or my preferred beach on the scenery. 2010/12/22 thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi Hi Martin, I also find it rather interesting to read something about the 'invisible' work behind the scenery - thank you for letting us know. It's sometimes difficult to appreciate the work that is not directly seen, and it helps a lot if you tell us. Thanks for the hard work. However, there is one sentence in your descriptions which I did not like, because it expresses a sentiment which I do not like at all about the Flightgear community. Please let me take the time to explain. The sentence I mean is This sort of Scenery development is substantially different from craving for aaah's and oooh's on The Forum after you successfully managed to follow an elaborate and nicely illustrated recipe on how to build FlightGear Terrain. I don't know for a fact what you want to imply, but it reminds me of something for example Vivian expressed a while ago with regard to judging cockpits by visual detail. Vivian wrote: I would suggest that as such it has little value for a Flight Sim such as ours which values accuracy above all else. Bit of fun for the forum though. Let me now speak more to the audience at large, rather than to Martin personally... In both statements I read the following ideas (I don't know if you literally meant that - but that's what came across) * while the mailinglist is for real work, the forum is just for playing around * consequently, while the forum can be impressed by cheap tricks and eye candy, the 'real' development community cares about more important things such as accuracy Let me take a virtual needle and deflate the claims a bit. Until recently, Flightgear's idea of a weather change was that pressure, wind and visibility instantly jump from one value to another. Hardly what I would call accuracy. Doing it differently by means of an interpolation isn't even technically complicated (my 1/d weighted routine was 40 lines or so) or would require terrible computing power - there was just nobody sufficiently interested before 2.0.0 came out. Or, as Emmanuel Baranger has pointed out repeatedly, the fact the JSBSim planes can frequently land on water can hardly be called accurate. I could go on, but I think my point is clear - the Flightgear development community doesn't value accuracy as such, but
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some community comments
To help put things in perspective, the people who are generating the beautiful scenery on the forum are using the same CORINE data set we are attempting to get into the scenery, and are using OSM roads, the license about which I am unsure. The advantage of this is we get to fly over higher quality land cover sooner than we otherwise would have, because we're also trying to get CORINE into the landcover database. However, with the exception of scenery models, no one is really developing anything new - just using existing data and programs to create the sceneries without much apparent thought to topology. This isn't bad as it gives us a larger, better area to fly through, and promotes scenery model creation. Still, none of the third party sceneries directly help the goal of adding data to the server or helping fix TerraGear to push out a new World Scenery package (and there will be a number of new places to explore in the next official version...) Cheers John -- Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some community comments
Hi Thorsten, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote: Let me now speak more to the audience at large, rather than to Martin personally... In both statements I read the following ideas (I don't know if you literally meant that - but that's what came across) * while the mailinglist is for real work, the forum is just for playing around * consequently, while the forum can be impressed by cheap tricks and eye candy, the 'real' development community cares about more important things such as accuracy This is a rather incomplete and therefore, at least to my opinion, pretty unfortunate and unsuitable representation of a certain status quo. See, the mailing list is having a tradition of more then a decade for inter-developer-communication. It has not only survived my own familiarization with the FlightGear project but also quite a few other unfortunate side issues. List members - those who are often being pejoratively called the developers (mostly) by those who are not subscribed - have arranged themselves quite nicely with the list and, like myself, have established methods or tools which allow to gather much information in very little time. The FlightGear Web Forum is a completely different beast. I have to admit that I know just this single web forum from own experience, so my general understanding of web forums is quite limited. Anyway, here I'm referring to our forum only. To put it shortly: I've never ever seen any technically assisted communication channel where the cost-benefit ratio is as bad as on this forum - this isn't even surpassed by badly configured VoIP telephony systems So, where do you guess are you going to meet those who are primarily interested in efficient communication !? As a consequence, you'd rather likely meet a bigger fraction of those species on the forum who are driven by different intentions. It's easy as that. Let me take a virtual needle and deflate the claims a bit. Until recently, Flightgear's idea of a weather change was that pressure, wind and visibility instantly jump from one value to another. Hardly what I would call accuracy. [...] Sure, FlightGear is rather incomplete (the extent is always depending on the point of view). Every feature requires someone to implement it, every bug requires someone to fix it. Alleging that the developers don't understand the implications or don't care about them is pretty inappropriate. To pick your example up, I typically don't try to land a C172 on water, neither in FlightGear nor in real life. This doesn't imply that I'm accepting this bug/feature as good enough. In fact I _do_ feel annoyed that aircraft developers are forced to implement ugly hacks for seaplanes because the FDM doesn't properly handle this case (not sure if one of the FDM's is already having a consistent implementation of gear forces). On the other hand there are other topics which I'm concerned about much _more_ (aside from the substantial fact that FDM is not my domain). So do others. In consequence, the bug or feature remains unfixed until someone takes a stab at it. I could go on, but I think my point is clear - the Flightgear development community doesn't value accuracy as such, but each of you has some notion of where he would like to have more accuracy, [...] The entire debate about accuracy is moot as long as people not only take different measures but also refer to different definitions of accuracy. [...] So instead of alienating people who care about modelling, texturing, reflection shaders for exterior models and such things by referring to all that as 'fun for the forum', I think you'd be much better off by encouraging these people to improve the aspects they are interested in and kindly teaching them to value also the aspects which are important to you personally. Frankly, the elitist attitude expressed in such sentences bothers me. I feel much more welcome in the forum - and as a result I usually write much more of my observations, progress reports and ideas in the forum. I also usually get as good response as I get here. So if you only read the list, there's lots of info which you're missing. Been there, spent many, many hours on explaining the background behind the Scenemodels/MapServer efforts and finally left the forum after I realized that the not invented here attitude dramatically outperforms the idea of collaborating on a common goal (plus a couple of other reasons). So, now what happens - a few folks get involved, follow the elaborate and nicely illustrate recipe how to do things and actually produce scenery - to hear that what they do is just 'craving for aaah's and oooh's on The Forum', as opposed to 'the real thing'. Well - just how charming and encouraging is that? Being honest: I don't care. If people think that following a cooking recipe is their cup of tea, then I'm fine with it. If they call this Scenery development and behave like having reinvented the wheel, then
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some community comments (was: Scenery Corner)
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote: Let me take a virtual needle and deflate the claims a bit. Until recently, Flightgear's idea of a weather change was that pressure, wind and visibility instantly jump from one value to another. Hardly what I would call accuracy. Doing it differently by means of an interpolation isn't even technically complicated (my 1/d weighted routine was 40 lines or so) or would require terrible computing power - there was just nobody sufficiently interested before 2.0.0 came out. Sorry to be a pedant, but this isn't quite true. I implemented METAR weather interpolation prior to 2.0.0 in August 2007 using X-values. See git commit e1019eb359544e10811acdad6a7d61134b6af366 However, it's entirely possible that it was subsequently broken or you are talking about something else. -Stuart -- Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some community comments
J. Holden wrote: [...] Still, none of the third party sceneries directly help the goal of adding data to the server or helping fix TerraGear to push out a new World Scenery package [...] Well said ! Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some community comments
J. Holden wrote: [...] Still, none of the third party sceneries directly help the goal of adding data to the server or helping fix TerraGear to push out a new World Scenery package [...] Well said ! Martin. But increases the attractiveness of a whole project called FlightGear, as it shows that it is not difficult to make an attractive qualitity scenery for free, and enlarges the freedom of use to any users. -- Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some community comments
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Martin Spott martin.sp...@mgras.net wrote: Being honest: I don't care. If people think that following a cooking And to be honest I don't understand why you started this discussion with such obvious trolling behavior and comments such as these? recipe is their cup of tea, then I'm fine with it. If they call this Scenery development and behave like having reinvented the wheel, then they're invited to reflect my comment. Now usually I just ignore you completely because I know from past experience are personalities don't mesh well, and I'll probably regret responding to you this time..but this is ridiculous. There are relatively few of us creating custom scenery from Corine and/or other data and making it available...I can seriously count them on one hand. Those few individuals, myself included, simply do not go around pretending we have reinvented the wheel or anything like that...nor are we looking for some ooh ahh factor. I personally am very open about what data I'm using, methods and tools I used, and have also made it quite clear on numerous occasions I'm not doing anything particulary noteworthy or new when it comes to generating the scenery from said data. We are simply trying to create the best scenery possible for ourselves and to the community at large ...to suggest otherwise is simply false. --Jacob -- Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some community comments
Hi Heiko, Heiko Schulz wrote: J. Holden wrote: [...] Still, none of the third party sceneries directly help the goal of adding data to the server or helping fix TerraGear to push out a new World Scenery package [...] Well said ! But increases the attractiveness of a whole project called FlightGear, [...] Depends on your very individual point of view. In contrast, I was confirmed that providing a seamless Terrain sounds quite appealing. Instead, having to assemble Scenery from a lot of different places if you're after a bigger chunk, especially if these chunks don't fit together properly, doesn't attract everyone. Neither does the public impression of why the hell does each of these fellows play in everyone's private sandboxes instead of collaborating on fixing their most pressing issues together. Anyhow I _do_ acknowledge a certain benefit for a certain 'type' of user, but I'd like to emphasize that this benefit doesn't necessarily scale to the entire (potential) user base. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some community comments
Replying to Heiko: But increases the attractiveness of a whole project called FlightGear, as it shows that it is not difficult to make an attractive qualitity scenery for free, and enlarges the freedom of use to any users. I am not arguing that point - as I said the CORINE data is available to users before it is in the database, and that is fine. However, cleaning the data and placing the data into the database would be much more productive, as it would allow us to include the data in the world scenery release. Right now these are third party-only. I am in no way opposed to people creating third party scenery for FlightGear. However I believe there is a difference between, say, the Brest photoreal scenery, and the CORINE scenery, because we should be able to get CORINE scenery in the database for more than just France in the future, whereas I believe Brest is separate from the scenery package for licensing reasons? Cheers John -- Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some community comments
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 23:16 +, Martin Spott wrote: Depends on your very individual point of view. In contrast, I was confirmed that providing a seamless Terrain sounds quite appealing. I agree completely with you on this issue. Instead, having to assemble Scenery from a lot of different places if you're after a bigger chunk, especially if these chunks don't fit together properly, doesn't attract everyone. Neither does the public impression of why the hell does each of these fellows play in everyone's private sandboxes instead of collaborating on fixing their most pressing issues together. Indeed. Here's why we played in our own sandboxes: I wanted to fly over my country with better looking scenery, and I damned well made it so. I was inspired by the custom France scenery and at the time I started to work on it I wasn't even aware of any similar project. Also, being a programmer myself and knowing how much I hate to write documentation, I made sure and documented every step of said process hoping it will be of some use to other potential developers. Initially I have found said scenery to be of subpar quality and only shared it with Emilian, a fellow countryman and developer of IAR80. However I have reached the conclusion that other users might want to fly over this particular chunk and shared it. I did not want in any way, shape or form to take the spotlight from your project, which I agree would be a better addition to Flightgear. Plus the fact that I used the same set of tools that you and the custom-scenery crew provides and without which it would have been impossible to generate any terrain. Anyhow I _do_ acknowledge a certain benefit for a certain 'type' of user, but I'd like to emphasize that this benefit doesn't necessarily scale to the entire (potential) user base. Where you see 'types' of users, I only see users. Most of these 'independently' developed scenery projects take advantage of OSM data, which is why they are released under CC by SA and also the reason they won't get integrated in the official distribution. However this does not mean that it is incompatible with Flightgear or that users can't enjoy it while waiting for a seamless integrated world terrain. I have only the highest expectations from your project, however in order to get many people involved and avoiding the same lone wolf approach, please use the wiki and provide more documentation and your experience to the community. Otherwise you will only see more 'flawed' terrain appear sooner rather than later. (this I might add is a characteristic of open development which should be regarded as it is rather than fought tooth and nail). Instead of endless discussions over this non-issue, time is better spent talking about the technical aspects involved in making Flightgear better. Best regards, Adrian Cheers, Martin. -- Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
