Board index FlightGear Development Aircraft Cockpit development

Bo 105 improvement

Discussion about creating 2d and 3d cockpits.

Bo 105 improvement

Postby Anna Tiffany » Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:53 am

Just downloaded the chopper with the most realistic fdm on fg but the model and systems are far from perfect anyone willing to give it a new life for it’s perfect fdm
User avatar
Anna Tiffany
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri May 07, 2021 7:07 am
Callsign: CAL1454
Version: 2020.3.13
OS: macOS

Re: Bo 105 improvement

Postby Johan G » Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:56 pm

Another popular choice is the Eurocopter EC135. I have not flown it myself, but it is far more complete than the BO-105, which I have tried.

You could also try out the Aérospatiale Alouette III, which supposedly have good FDM, or the FlightGear UK (FGUK) helicopters. Currently my favorite is their McDonnell Douglas MD500D.
Low-level flying — It's all fun and games till someone looses an engine. (Paraphrased from a YouTube video)
Improving the Dassault Mirage F1 (Wiki, Forum, GitLab. Work in slow progress)
Some YouTube videos
Johan G
Moderator
 
Posts: 6629
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:33 pm
Location: Sweden
Callsign: SE-JG
IRC name: Johan_G
Version: 2020.3.4
OS: Windows 10, 64 bit

Re: Bo 105 improvement

Postby HHS » Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:01 pm

Anna Tiffany wrote in Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:53 am:Just downloaded the chopper with the most realistic fdm on fg but the model and systems are far from perfect anyone willing to give it a new life for it’s perfect fdm


Hi, I´m Heiko, back after about 10 years to this forum for a short visit (former username here HHS)- because I´m concerned about certain things I discovered here. :|

Thanks for your interest in helicopters and bo105. Yes, compared with the fdm all other things are quite poor, so I´m working in the background on the bo105. Mainly 3d-work, but also having the systems already in mind. And yes, the fdm can be called highly realistic, not only because as its backed up by many published aeroydynamic datas like a detailed NASA-report, but also tested by some real life bo105 pilots. According to Maik Justus (original fdm-author) the fdm is also based on inputs by Rainer Wilke, german Red Bull pilot, from another non-flightgear project.

So the handling (helicopter reaction on pilot inputs to stick, pedals, collective) can be called spot on; but perfomance like vertical speed and maximum altitude may be be off. The last time I tested it against the Flight Manual I was a bit dissapointed.

About me: I am an aircraft developer alone and involved in many aircraft projects since 2006 (ASK21, 737-300, 727-230, EC 135 helicopter, EC130/ H130 helicopters, Bell UH-1 helicopter, original author of the BK117 helicopter ( stolen taken without notifying me by StuartC btw. :wink: ) and parts of the used in the free available EC145-helicopter by FGUK; Panavia Tornado; Dornier 328-100/300 together with xvcb, involved in the c172p-project, one of the main developer of the Cessna 182 S/T- and yes: I took over maintainence and caretakeing of the bo105 helicopter some while ago.

And what I´m also - part of an european healthcare system with academic background, working right now on master graduation with maybe working later as a scientist. Why is this important? Because that means - limited time. And yes, some dead lines I set couldn`t be hold due this. I´m also not getting paid here for my work- developing an high-fidelity aircraft needs many thousand hours. Due my experience that many of my work has been used in a not GPL-compatible way, and most of the time never get anything back I decided not to publish any more progress more unless I´m happy with it.

You will probably taken here to a derivation of the original model bo105- but you never won´t see this version in FGAddon due its incompatibility with GNU GPL.

But I do appreciate GNU-GPL-legal contributions about systems when they are based on the Flight Manual/ Training Manual/ Maintenance Manual.
User avatar
HHS
 
Posts: 3625
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:09 am
Version: GIT

Re: Bo 105 improvement

Postby StuartC » Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:18 pm

I have an upgrade of the Bo105 sitting. Its not complete but it has the Overhead modelled and textured ( needs switches labelled and animated ), full main instrument panel, modern Compositor external lighting. Textured interior, except the doors which are still to do, Properly re textured with livery swapping, Modern glass and fuselage effects including rain etc. Its composite of work by many and its taken a long long time to do whats been done on it to date. It has not been released to the public though.
StuartC
 
Posts: 3175
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: Arse end of the Universe
Callsign: WF01
Version: 2019.1
OS: W10 64 bit

Re: Bo 105 improvement

Postby HHS » Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:32 pm

Thanks, but as I know it already from what I could see on your forum it is not GNU-GPL compatible. And even if I'm wrong the work I have already done isn't compatible with, since edit: my work is a complete detailed rebuild from scratch, and especially the time I already have put into.

Did I say alreeady that I don't like hostile forks, and I find it as an disrespect to the original authors, because any improvements never got transfered back to the original source?
Up, up and away
User avatar
HHS
 
Posts: 3625
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:09 am
Version: GIT

Re: Bo 105 improvement

Postby StuartC » Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:47 pm

The BO105 would be GPL., Thats what it started as.
As it lay dormant for years it was presumed abandoned and you were not present in the FlightGear universe ether. If forking a GPL licensed opensource project is "Hostile" then classincg it as such sort of flies in the face of the GPL Opensource nature of it.
The intention was never to be hostile rather than to try and improve some of the elements that we thought might do with some work then release it for people to enjoy, although it's not fed back that's only because we don't have the method to commit them to the required repositories
StuartC
 
Posts: 3175
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: Arse end of the Universe
Callsign: WF01
Version: 2019.1
OS: W10 64 bit

Re: Bo 105 improvement

Postby HHS » Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:19 pm

"abandoned"- the same thing you said when grabbing and taking over the BK117 from my repository, because you havn't seen any progress for a short while.

Why you never approached me, why did you never asked me how you can help? Asked for collaboration?

That's exactly what you should do when you want to feed back, if you don't have the method.

Which sounds btw. funny, because the method is simple by creating your own repo or fork the original repo and ask for merge.

And a hostile fork " happens when someone isn’t happy about the way a collaborative effort is being run, so they start their own competing project. They take the work of the group in a different direction...rather than working on achieving a consensus. Often they lobby for developers to assist their effort, rather than the original project from which they are derived." From http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/HostileFork

It may be legal as long you fully stick to GNU GPL- but it is disrespectful to the original authors you have taken from. It is the same behavior we have seen with FGMembers. It can harm the original project- that's why it is called 'hostile'.
Up, up and away
User avatar
HHS
 
Posts: 3625
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:09 am
Version: GIT

Re: Bo 105 improvement

Postby StuartC » Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:39 pm

Ok, whatever, Im "Hostile" if you like.
5 years ago my Father died, I ended up in a very dark place. My love and passion for Helicopters is one of the few things that I was able to use to dig myself out. In that process I think the World of Helicopters in FG became a better place as I poured everything I could into assembling a wide range of Choppers to the best of my abilities and pulling the best I could from the time and skills of others.
You removed yourself from here 10 years ago. "A short while" is somewhat of an understatement.
You have made it clear you do not want anything we have prepared for the BO105, so I presume you wont want anything else we have done. This makes you complaining about us not feeding back and creating Hostile forks a mute point as its unlikely you would accept any changes that came from FGUK.
StuartC
 
Posts: 3175
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: Arse end of the Universe
Callsign: WF01
Version: 2019.1
OS: W10 64 bit

Re: Bo 105 improvement

Postby HHS » Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:23 pm

1.) It is not you who ìs 'hostile' - it is your fork which is hostile.

2.) I didn't remove me from FlightGear. I did remove me only from the forum in year 2012- that's a difference.

I still was and I am still part of the whole FlightGear community. In the past years I still was involved in developement and updating aircraft and many other things, and I am still. More slowly than before due some healthy changes in life- but still there- yet!

3.) It was a short while - because taking a break of the BK117 and focussing on another aircraft.

4.) You are a rotorhead like me, and we share the same passion. And as you could see- I like some of your work quite much like the AS532.

5.) I was only allowed to take over the bo105 by Melchior Franz when I make sure that certain textures never appear on that arcraft and some other things. With 'certain' textures are those meant, which made many years ago their rounds here taken from any photos found in the internet. And those textures I could discover on your derivation.

FlightGear has always respected the whishes of their developers, and so I want to this to Melchior Franz. He wasn't an easy guy- but his work is still base if many, many things in FlightGear, and brought me some joy. That's the reason I can't accept certain things to the bo105 in respect to melchior.

6.) It is a rethorical question if I would accept- because you never asked. You never made an offer. Even now.
Up, up and away
User avatar
HHS
 
Posts: 3625
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:09 am
Version: GIT

Re: Bo 105 improvement

Postby Anna Tiffany » Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:31 am

I’m not a developer just a transgender girl who fly flightgear helicopters as a hobby.When I started HRT without doctor’s advice which is very hard to get here,my parents can’t accept me as a girl and what’s worse,they no longer trust me,and they tried to guide me back to a male which I can not accept.those days I was ful of negative emotions till I found my passion on flying flightgear helicopters.Maybe the art of hover flying taught me how to balance my own emotions , I am now feeling much better.I may never be able to fly the real thing but the passion just told me that there’s so many things worth living for and stopped me from ending myself. Thankyou to flightgear helicopters and amazing people like you.
User avatar
Anna Tiffany
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri May 07, 2021 7:07 am
Callsign: CAL1454
Version: 2020.3.13
OS: macOS

Re: Bo 105 improvement

Postby geed » Thu Jun 10, 2021 10:37 pm

Heiko, you have not been available for contact in any way in all those years. He actually wanted to contact you but you where not there.
So he and we as well took the model as it is licenced under GPL and forked it, yes. And we added changes to it. This is how it works in the GPL world.

As of your point 5 - you never stated somewhere in any of the model files the fact about Melchior. As much as it might be understandable it is also irrelevant as it has been released under that license. If it would have been stated somewhere in the files I am sure that we and others who added those texture would have taken much more care in choosing them and even tried to avoid using explicit ones.
geed
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:53 pm
Location: in between
Callsign: G-EED
Version: 2017.3.1
OS: OSX, Win8.1

Re: Bo 105 improvement

Postby HHS » Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:04 am

O.k.- now you getting me really angry, since you know that you NOT telling the truth:

-I am and I was available on the mailing-lists the whole time
-I am and I was available per FlightGear-Wiki the whole time
-my email is listed at the Gitlab- Repo where the BK117 was distributed
-my email ist listed on my own personal homepage where I had distributed stuff
-in the ec135 files I even have a seperate file with my email
- the c182-project on github which is known is related to me has my email

In the past years many people had been able to contact me and communicate with me (like a member of FGUK and I did on the mailing-list regarding the tornado) so that's a lame excuse you are presenting and showing me that you ignore how Project FlightGear is working.

-Melchior Franz made it even clear here in the forum, that he don't like to see those textures as he doubt it being compatible with GNU GPL. Anyway-I had to tell you if you really had contact me.

And of course Melchiors bo105 is released under GNU GPL, so as long you stick to GNU GPL (keep the licence when distributing, make sure the source is available, don't use stuff which is not compatible with GNU GPL ...) you can alter and distribute it, as it is legal.


But if you want to feed back aka getting your changes back to mainstream (which is known as "FGAddon" ) you have to contact the responsible persons. And those are all on the mailing-list -like me- the official place where FlightGear is coordinated. That had been stated here in the forum several times as well.

I really wonder why it is still not clear how FlightGear works... :|
Last edited by Johan G on Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Please do not quote the entire preceding post.
Up, up and away
User avatar
HHS
 
Posts: 3625
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:09 am
Version: GIT

Re: Bo 105 improvement

Postby benih » Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:02 am

geed, I want to second Heiko on that.
I surely was able to get in touch with Heiko and he (nearly :)) always responded. Sometimes slowly, however, (for valid reasons he stated above, which were known to me since years, because he told me).
I also remember seeing Heiko responding on various topics in the devel list from time to time.

Making the initial contact may not be as easy as looking up a phonebook, but it would have been probably easiest to just ask the devel list if someone has contact to him. I'm sure, plenty of people would have dropped various contact channels.
User avatar
benih
 
Posts: 1689
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 10:34 am
Callsign: D-EBHX
Version: next
OS: Debian Linux 64bit

Re: Bo 105 improvement

Postby Ysop » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:23 am

@Anna: Feel welcome! It is here only about aviation and GNU-licnences ;-)

@Heiko: Nice job on the C182. The recent changes around yaw-axis were really a major improvement.
User avatar
Ysop
 
Posts: 1348
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:06 pm
Version: 2020.3.18
OS: ubuntu 22.04

Re: Bo 105 improvement

Postby vnts » Wed Jul 14, 2021 4:57 am

HHS wrote in Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:19 pm:Which sounds btw. funny, because the method is simple by creating your own repo or fork the original repo and ask for merge.


StuartC wrote in Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:47 pm:[..] although it's not fed back that's only because we don't have the method to commit them to the required repositories


There might be a barrier here with regards to technology / operating system / preffered (G)UI input.

HHS wrote in Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:19 pm:It is the same behavior we have seen with FGMembers. It can harm the original project- that's why it is called 'hostile'.


I don't think there is any hostile motivation from either side - e.g. FGUK aren't a side of whatever historical(?) drama happened in the past with FGMembers. FGUK don't have an alternative vision in some part for FG that they are trying to push (?) even through unrelated areas like development and giving back changes (?). From what I've seen, FGUK have been friendly towards the main Flightgear project, doing their part to inform people and clear misconceptions [1] without bringing a conflict into it etc. StuartC also announces releases on the forum.

FGUK have download counters in their hangar so they're aware [2] that unless something is in the launcher almost no one sees it, given how few browse the forum. There would be a much larger heli community by now if compatible work had been added to the launcher - even without non-GPL textures etc, including a lot more heli flyers from the UK in their multiplayer group.

I don't think StuartC (a windows person) uses git/svn in his workflow somehow - or is comfortable with technical things like mailing lists (which also seem to be a bit tricky to use with web based mail clients from my experience so far).

From my pretty anecdotal observations of the parts of the (development parts of) forums I've read, the forum seems to be almost all Linux users or MacOS (which is also POSIX based underneath) users according to what OS info is present in posts. A lot of the Linux / Mac FG contributors seem to be either familiar with scripting or programming of some sort and have a lot of surrounding knowledge or commandline skills that can be taken for granted - even if they are from non-programming backgrounds professionally. So there seems to be an entry barrier related to OS background. The thing with such barriers is affected people aren't visible at all - but you can sometimes spot the missing part when the expected number of doesn't match e.g. there's a lot of downloads from Windows users, and other sims like FSX do have a huge modding community despite being Windows. Occasionally Windows people do come from FSX e.g. this experienced scenery modder who found FG on flightsim.com forums but had couldn't figure out [3] how to start porting his work despite putting in a lot of effort and even buying a flash drive.

FGUK probably(?) makes it easier for Windows people to participate by exchanging zip files etc.

What FGUK work has been added to FGAddon seems to be when existing FGAddon people like Richard (Jaguar GR1) or Helijah (DA 40) taking zip files and integrating it.

I think the amount of Windows users may have improved slightly in the last year or two (certainly FG first impressions and UI has improved which should help people get into FG). But it was only a short while ago there wasn't really any Windows people in the mailinglist [link], and Legoboyvdlp picked up Windows build tweaking for a while as James is mainly on Mac (there are a few people these days). When I first found FG, IIRC only a couple of forum regulars seemed to use Windows - Richard, Legoboyvdlp, neocolatis, StuartC, octal (also on Mac), and a couple of other people I might be forgetting.

(Me being on the forums isn't really indicative of a lower entry barrier for Windows people either - as I'm an outlier - e.g. while I'm not a programmer professionally, I at least knew something of C/C++ before finding FG, enough to follow GLSL).

I'm not sure what percentage of people in FGUK use git/svn, if any - or use Windows - but it's probably different from the forum.

Google suggests there are good GUI clients for SVN it seems, including simple ones that just integrate into windows explorer - but haven't tested (currently trying git extensions with FGData git on the theory the client may be fast/responsive compared to others as it's done in C++). For new aircraft developers it probably needs a video demonstration or something to setup and use FGAddon for the few common operations needed for most use.

HHS wrote in Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:04 am:And those are all on the mailing-list -like me- the official place where FlightGear is coordinated.


It's unfortunate as in the normal course of things, StuartC and other long time FGUK developers would have a lot of input or regression reports to provide on the mailing list - Given aircraft devs are really well placed to notice issues and provide feedback. In addition they'd probably be senior FGAddon reviewers and mentors by now etc.

Kind regards
vnts
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:29 am

Next

Return to Cockpit development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest