hehehe, didn't I said this will happen? All the times I give my personal impression as a new user that arrives to FG, I receive explanations of what FG is or don't is.
statto wrote:The methodology has nothing to do with git.
git is just a program which helps organize what everyone is doing at a given time.
Am I the one not expressing it correctly? or perhaps my english is too poor? I think that I have clearly said that I'm talking about methodology of work in FG as a general way of development (including sharing changes and files through GIT), not GIT itself. Or it's still not well understood?.
statto wrote:I've used git when working professionally so the organization could work concurrently on different parts of the project.
Once again, who is questioning the good comunication and daily updates on changes done by different part using GIT or whatever similar?. I said... "Developers needs a stable basic plataform to develop every peripherals in FG, so you cannot be changing their plataform every new day". Accordingly, as currently used GIT for to help comunication while developing FG only allows to continue the actual uncategorized and non organized way (and for the same reason not optimal and logical way) of development.
statto wrote:With open source you can't force anyone to do anything...
...If I were working toward a goal though that goal may never be achieved because I can stop working at any time.
None of this two sentences are a reason for to don't work toward goals. Reach a goal means many lines of development working together to get there, and you can join the line you want, but always having in mind the final goal. So, no one is forcing you to work, and no one is forcing you to work in an especific area. And if you stop working at any time, then as you said yourself, another will take your place. And if no other take your place, then perhaps the final goal will not be reached, but this is not a reason for to don't work toward it.
Of course that to follow guidelines toward a goal is a way of forcing to do something, but if you don't want to be forced to anywhere, then... don't contribute. But don't expect to approach to a project and do exactly whatever you want. This is not anarchy, doesn't it?. If you wanna do whatever you want with FG, well... it's open source and you can do with the code what pleases you. But if you want to contribute the project itself, then you should follow previously scheduled guidelines toward a goal. And the main original goal in FG was be a better simulator with its own graphic code, and with a better development plataform. Well, both things, after 15 years, are still don't reached. Even being an "great announced" open source software. Simple.
So, when I read user's sentences like yours here:
statto wrote:Also I would like to say FlightGear is not "far under" the commercial programs. There is a lot of work to do yes but the program can outperform the other programs at times.
... I ask them: can you tell me, please, in what can FG outperform to other commercial simulators? I will try to move forward and I guess the answers will come: "FG is better in dynamic flight simulation". Ok, in FG the dynamic flight simulation depends almost entirely on FDM developed in every single aircraft, right? so... can you tell me in what airplanes and how many is better FG to other payment simulators?. You don't know? Ok, then let see the graphical environment of flight:
+ Simulator: FSX
+ Year of development: actual status, 2010.
+ Scenary: default sim Manhattan, NY.
+ Airplane: deafult helicopter: Bell 206
+ Simulator: FG
+ Year of development: actual status, 2010.
+ Scenary: default sim Manhattan, NY.
+ Airplane: deafult helicopter: BO-105
Can you tell me in what is better FG, here? I know, you say "It is not the problem with the software but overall rather a problem with the quality of the models". Ok, but... sorry, I don't care if it is problem of software or problem of models... I see a poor scenary and a poor aircraft. That's all. And finally, if I see a poor default graphic development is not problem of models, is problem of project. And think at this: this is New York, one of the icon cities in the whole world. I will tell you this: the first time I was going to fly in NY I was really excited. I wanted to see the skyline, the Empire State, the Statue of Liberty, and all those things.... then I started to fly then I found what shown on picture above. Hahahaha, when I saw the skycrapers the first time, I thought was flying the wrong place. Then vaguely recognized the tip of Manhattan and then.... hahahahahahaah a little obelisk in the place of the Statue of Liberty. There were no doubt: I was flying over... Manhattan. I cannot explain you the terrible feeling of disappointment when saw the fact that this was FG.
Understand at once: FG have not 1 or 2 years developing aircrafts and scenaries, have 15!!!! and even today is better than yesterday, every year FSX and X-plane will be better too, so at the current way of development, FG will be always, BY FAR, UNDER payment simulators. Or is that you don't see this obvious truth?
We have talked many times with El Flauta, being compatriots, and I think that's why we have reached the same thought, even he is a longer FG user than me, and have seen the progress and development of simulator over time. The FG users acquire so much love and commitment with it, that lost the perspective of what really FG is, and comply with candy balls. FG graphic quality is not "overall not excellent", is POOR, REALLY POOR. And some beautiful scenes are candy balls that are helpful to forget the poor scenary that the rest is. And graphic quality is not the only shortcoming of FG. Is the only one that I have more harder reported, because it's my strength.
The final answer of almost everybody is: "Ok, perhaps you are right, but FG is open source and it is developed with people willingness". Ok, if this is the always last answer then I say again: the fact that FG is open source and are currently a lot of people (including me) working hard to do it better are not reasons to think that some day will be better simulator than others, and that has reached its goal to be a better option to other payment simulators. Other simulators works hard too and do a lot of progresses and developments every new year, so the gap will be always similar (sometimes more, sometimes less) as 15 years ago.