Board index FlightGear Development Aircraft Cockpit development

The always great C172p cockpit improvement!!

Discussion about creating 2d and 3d cockpits.

Re: The always great C172p cockpit improvement!!

Postby scotth1 » Sat Dec 11, 2010 2:27 am

Welcome to the world of global open source software development.

For what it is worth, git is only a code repository it is not a methodology, I think what you might be describing is the old waterfall software development methodology. That only works for a team of 2 - 5 people who sit next to each other in a company with a strict project management methodology imposed on top.

Open Source projects such as Linux, Apache, GNU and many many others very quickly fall down with software development methods of a small company, the key to open source development is a lot of communication, governance and supporting tools; git is just one tool it doesn't provide governance, or a particular methodology, just an easier way to maintain code.

And nearly every code repository tool I can think of allows concurrent development, the only one that used to be backward in this sense was Microsoft Visual Sourcesafe, not sure if the product still exists, I think it has been replaced by some .Net Foundation blah blah Service...

I have found when working with another person on an aircraft it works very well to both use git, because we communicate what we are working on to each other, and we can get almost daily updates of what the other person has done, it allows you to quickly move on to the next task without waiting for the code to be merged by hand. If everyone communicates well and commits often, then you should not get into a scenario where you have two weeks of effort that doesn't work.

I use a separate development git repository for each aircraft, when it is time to make a distribution release I merge it into a cloned fgdata repository, but otherwise it remains standalone, but that is just because I like to cleanly separate it out.

The advantage of using a git repository with FlightGear (in particular one on gitorious.org) is that your work has visibility, and people can help you work on it, it can be branched very easily, and your work can be added to to the mainline quickly and easily. The inverse of that is also true.

Hope that helps to understand why the open source community in general likes concurrent source code repositories, and why they have built governance and tools to support their projects and don't expect a code repository to do that for them.

S.
scotth1
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:27 am
Location: Australia
Callsign: VH-SHA
Version: Git next
OS: Linux 3.4.11

Re: The always great C172p cockpit improvement!!

Postby horacio » Sat Dec 11, 2010 4:29 am

It seems that it's still not well understood that I'm not talking about benefits or disadventages of GIT as a space of quick access to get latest changes done in a project like FG. It's obviously that, as currently used, it perfectly fulfills its function. So, those kind of sentences as "we communicate what we are working on to each other" are misplaced, because this is already perfectly understood. That's what GIT is for, doesn't it? Would be entirely absurd that those situations would not happen.

I'm talking about main guidelines of a project that born with a purpose quite concrete: "be a better free option to other payment flight simulators in development area, and therefore, an a more highly potentiated software". This goal is still not reached after more than 15 years!!!!. And is still far from achieving. You cannot reach a goal with no guidelines to lead you there. And if you don't want to draw guidelines to nothing, and cannot reach your main goal with an open source project because no obligations for anyone, and only beeing developed by simple willingness... then forget the main goal, and do only what you can.

Most of you as developers are so involved in your works, and perhaps by so long time, that have not the time to see the whole project from outside. And I'm sorry to say, but when you get to FG the first time you look at it as a simple game that still survive (by miracle) since old 90's. Only the really great desire to fly (or simulate it), and the great affection that most of users feel for FG makes them stay and become involved in the project.

If FG were born to be a better option in development and with a "custom 3D graphics code" in comparison to payment simulator, and after 15 years is still by far under them, don't you think that main purpose and goals that were desired to reach needs an exhaustive review? and find out why after all this years, and even having hundreds of hands working in all areas of development, main purpose is still don't reached?

I'm already reading the answers will receive.... "that FG has achieved this and that", "that FG is free and open source", "that FG is this and this"... I'm sorry, all those explanations doesn't make FG better. Are only that: explanations of what FG is at this moment. And it doesn't help in nothing that FG be open source if after 15 years is still a simulator so poor in graphics, in sceneries, and in many other ways.

Please, if you wanna good understand what I'm saying, then don't see the little achievements that every single developer have contributed, see the whole scene that find a new user that arrives the first time to FG.

I still don't understand why every time I give my opinion (which is my personal impression) I receive explanations from more than one user. Ithink it's not possible to give explanations for impressions that a user have about a project. It's just that: impressions. And impressions are caused by the experience that generates an encounter with something new, and for this there is no worthwhile explanation. You see what you see.

If FG is not the good simulator that you expected were, then you ask yourself why it's not well developed as it should be, then you find that the actual development methodology is "everyone do anything and put it on GIT, and GIT is all this ANYTHING together", then you conclude: "There is no guidelines to any concrete goals, so FG is a project that grows anywhere but hardly up, then FG will hardly be a good simulator".
HORACIO CONTRERAS
El Hangar de Horacio
... ¿y dónde está el Teniente Bello?
_____________________________________________________________________________
Vive FlightGear! Have you a Ñ on your keyboard? Spain-LatinAmerica FlightGear community!
User avatar
horacio
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:06 am
Location: SCVM, Chile
Callsign: CC-HCR
Version: 2
OS: Windows 7

Re: The always great C172p cockpit improvement!!

Postby statto » Sat Dec 11, 2010 4:57 am

The methodology has nothing to do with git.

git is just a program which helps organize what everyone is doing at a given time.

I've used git when working professionally so the organization could work concurrently on different parts of the project.

With open source you can't force anyone to do anything. For instance I am trying my damndest to improve scenery from all over the world. Since it has been merged into the scenery version of git (the mapserver or scenemodels) I could leave tomorrow and other users could use my contribution. If I were working toward a goal though that goal may never be achieved because I can stop working at any time.

The alternative is to create a c172 for a specific version of FlightGear, for instance 2.0.0. If you release it GPL and do it well enough, someone will merge it into git. If it breaks between 2.0.0 and, say, 2.1.0, which is unlikely but possible (since if it breaks, a lot of other things will probably break as well), someone will probably try to make sure the quality work also gets merged into 2.1.0.

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.
Custom Scenery available from http://www.stattosoftware.com/flightgear
statto
 
Posts: 2106
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:57 pm

Re: The always great C172p cockpit improvement!!

Postby El Flauta » Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:40 am

I guess than Linux Kernel developers works following clear guidelines given by Linus Torvalds and other leaders, and they are more than 100 people from all countries... the works go right, and still being Open and Free. There are no contradiction about Open Source and guided Goals.

Of course, you can't force people to work in specific targets, but you can invite and inspire them. I think the same that Horacio: FlightGear can grow a lot, if the goals are clear.

In the description on FG, you can read that the sim was created for pilot training and academic purposes.. can you do positive training it with a plane without ALL instruments and systems? Obviously, not. However, if you invite the whole comunity of developers to work in a specific way, you can get it. An example? Glass cockpit, instrumentation, procedure libraries and clear documentation.

In other side, a clear weakness of FlightGear is Graphic quality (we are in 2010, not 90's!), an area where Horacio is working hard, and very well. I don't understand people who feels uncomfortable with this... simulation inmersion are not just FDM!
Vive FlightGear! Have you a Ñ on your keyboard? Spain-LatinAmerica FlightGear community!
--
PZL M18B Dromader
CASA C-101 Aviojet
Cessna 337G Skymaster
User avatar
El Flauta
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:09 am
Location: SCVM, Chile
Callsign: CC-FLT
Version: 3
OS: Windows 7 SP1

Re: The always great C172p cockpit improvement!!

Postby statto » Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:16 am

1) I do not think anyone is uncomfortable with the work - it is very nice!

2) Graphic quality is overall not excellent but the program can handle some beautiful scenes. It is not the problem with the software but overall rather a problem with the quality of the models.

3) Re: specific targets, if you look at the scenery with Innsbruck or St. Maarten it is a clear example where several people work together to improve a specific area, however aircraft seem more difficult than scenery because different people can make different changes to them and then everything has to be merged together :/

All I can say is we are getting better every day!
Custom Scenery available from http://www.stattosoftware.com/flightgear
statto
 
Posts: 2106
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:57 pm

Re: The always great C172p cockpit improvement!!

Postby El Flauta » Sat Dec 11, 2010 7:40 am

Well... i am 100% ok with the 3rd pint. I started with 0.9, and your can see the advance... but i think that can be even better. :wink:
Vive FlightGear! Have you a Ñ on your keyboard? Spain-LatinAmerica FlightGear community!
--
PZL M18B Dromader
CASA C-101 Aviojet
Cessna 337G Skymaster
User avatar
El Flauta
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:09 am
Location: SCVM, Chile
Callsign: CC-FLT
Version: 3
OS: Windows 7 SP1

Re: The always great C172p cockpit improvement!!

Postby horacio » Sat Dec 11, 2010 2:59 pm

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

Image


+ Simulator: FG
+ Year of development: actual status, 2010.
+ Scenary: default sim Manhattan, NY.
+ Airplane: deafult helicopter: BO-105

Image

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.
HORACIO CONTRERAS
El Hangar de Horacio
... ¿y dónde está el Teniente Bello?
_____________________________________________________________________________
Vive FlightGear! Have you a Ñ on your keyboard? Spain-LatinAmerica FlightGear community!
User avatar
horacio
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:06 am
Location: SCVM, Chile
Callsign: CC-HCR
Version: 2
OS: Windows 7

Re: The always great C172p cockpit improvement!!

Postby Tuxklok » Sat Dec 11, 2010 3:53 pm

About merging to git....would this not work, even if not exactly optimal?
Code: Select all
git branch c172-horacio
git checkout c172-horacio
# dump this version of the c172 over top the current
git add ...
git commit -a
git checkout master
git merge c172-horacio
The Austria Scenery Project - more info
fg-scenery-tools - gitorious | videos
fgcomgui - Open source, cross platform, gui front end for fgcom. more info

More random musings and doings can be found on my personal site. (work in progress)
User avatar
Tuxklok
 
Posts: 1320
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:04 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Callsign: Tuxklok / N1292P
OS: GNU/Linux

Re: The always great C172p cockpit improvement!!

Postby rafa23189 » Sat Dec 11, 2010 7:28 pm

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.


Well its not that bad.

The MFS is no longer developed.
Furthermore one good thing about FG is that is free, I am a student and I cant pay 100 dollars for a flight simulator, and I dont want to download it from Emule, piratebay, etc. I thinks its wrong, its just my point of view and I dont want to start a discussion about piracy here,
The helicopter you choose to take the screen shot is one of the less developed, there are some much better.

A good thing about this discussion that came to my mind is that maybe we shouldn't worry about having millions of aircrafts, we dont have enough people. Maybe we should focus on just a few and develop them as best as we can.

Cheers
rafa23189
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:51 pm

Re: The always great C172p cockpit improvement!!

Postby statto » Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:15 pm

Funny you should mention New York.

This is a shot of the mapserver for the Scenery 2.0. http://mapserver.flightgear.org/map/?lo ... FFTTTFTFFF

If you want to compare this to the current scenery click the plus on the right and select "vmap0".

While Manhattan scenery is not yet covered, it is finished, and will be on the server within the next two weeks!

Unfortunately this does not include the skyscrapers. I would like to model a few myself but where is the time?

Still the whole world is covered by "free" data - and while the New York scenery is also "free" data - you just need someone to come along and improve it!

And for the 15 years argument - we only really started getting a handle on the scenery in the past three years or so!
Custom Scenery available from http://www.stattosoftware.com/flightgear
statto
 
Posts: 2106
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:57 pm

Re: The always great C172p cockpit improvement!!

Postby skyop » Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:18 pm

Also, I put time-based WTC models in Manhattan. I don't think that's something FS[insert version here] has.
Aircraft: [ CRJ700-family | DC-10-30 ] Scenery: [ KBFL ]
skyop
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:40 am
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
IRC name: skyop
Version: next
OS: Fedora 23/Windows 10

Re: The always great C172p cockpit improvement!!

Postby horacio » Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:02 pm

rafa23189 wrote:Well its not that bad.


No??!! Uh, then we have very different perceptions of what graphical development means, specially when we are currently 2010 year, and games and simulators (any kind) have several years of development behind and the expectation of the graphical environment found on any game and simulator is highly more developed than what FG is.

rafa23189 wrote:Furthermore one good thing about FG is that is free, I am a student and I cant pay 100 dollars for a flight simulator, and I dont want to download it from Emule, piratebay, etc.


I'm absolutely agreed that this is the only great advantage of FG over other flight simulators.

rafa23189 wrote:The helicopter you choose to take the screen shot is one of the less developed, there are some much better.


That's precisely why I choose it, because is the default one in 2.0 version, and is one of the less developed (at least until my improvements). And Bell206 is the default one in FSX (AKA the basic one), and is better graphically developed than any of our helicopters.

The same with scenary:

statto wrote:While Manhattan scenery is not yet covered, it is finished, and will be on the server within the next two weeks!

Unfortunately this does not include the skyscrapers. I would like to model a few myself but where is the time?


I was not showing Manhattan because terrain, if not because the whole scenary. The default scenary in FSX includes well developed terrain, well developed textures to each kind of portion of terrain (streets, riverside, texture for more houses, for less houses, Central Park, etc), well developed more emblematic buildings in NY (at least 30 of them). And all this is the default scenary, not any add-on (which are someones really amazing). So, that's why I compared it with default FG scenary.

Ergo, I showed default aircraft and default scenary in both simulators, and the diferences between them are abysmal. If everyone prefers to think that "it's not too bad", ok, then continue to be the sim of second category in graphical development.

statto wrote:And for the 15 years argument - we only really started getting a handle on the scenery in the past three years or so!


Then worse. Are you telling me that after 12 years of development just came to think was necessary a "little bit of improvement" on scenaries????? I cannot believe.

I remember have used FS the first time in 1996, and had AT THAT TIME better scenaries than actual have FG. I'm sorry, but... don't you think 12 years it's too long time to just start to improve scenaries in a flight simulator?.

I will tell you something, simulation consist in simulate the real life, right? Wikipedia says:

Simulation is the imitation of some real thing, state of affairs, or process. The act of simulating something generally entails representing certain key characteristics or behaviours of a selected physical or abstract system.


There are some things of real life that cannot be simulated properly in a 2d environment. So, the best way to do a good simulation is to deceive the senses, so they feel that are looking, listenings, etc, the same as in real life. So, better than delineate the edges of terrain in NY or anywhere, is to do first a good development and definition of texture to each kind and portions of terrain (concentration of houses, urban dispersion, plantation fields, etc), and its corresponding gradients between one and other.

I've been never in NY, so I don't know if the edge of Hudson river is more curved or more flat in this or that part, so it's not the first thing relevant for simulation to see a edge river with more or less curves than needed. But I know enough world to know the visual appearence of a riverside, how the water mixed with sand, and then it come some grasses, and then some trees, and then wathever... So, you will never deceive the senses with so abrupt break between water and land, how currently exists on FG, even your edge river have exactly until the last milimiter of curves as reality.

To see this kind of details, and schedule a proper development of this in time, is part of a good projection of a project along time. 12 years is more than enough time to have already solved all texture terrain gradients, and have ONLY WITH THIS DETAIL a much more realistic terrain, which anybody can recognize as part of real life, independent if is China, India, Eastern Island or Peru, and if you know or doesn't the real terrain.

skyop wrote:Also, I put time-based WTC models in Manhattan. I don't think that's something FS[insert version here] has.


We all apreciate it (the same I have put Statue of Liberty), but this doesn't do better FG because FS haven't.
HORACIO CONTRERAS
El Hangar de Horacio
... ¿y dónde está el Teniente Bello?
_____________________________________________________________________________
Vive FlightGear! Have you a Ñ on your keyboard? Spain-LatinAmerica FlightGear community!
User avatar
horacio
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:06 am
Location: SCVM, Chile
Callsign: CC-HCR
Version: 2
OS: Windows 7

Re: The always great C172p cockpit improvement!!

Postby Tuxklok » Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:47 pm

I was not showing Manhattan because terrain, if not because the whole scenary. The default scenary in FSX includes well developed terrain, well developed textures to each kind of portion of terrain (streets, riverside, texture for more houses, for less houses, Central Park, etc), well developed more emblematic buildings in NY (at least 30 of them). And all this is the default scenary, not any add-on (which are someones really amazing). So, that's why I compared it with default FG scenary.

Ergo, I showed default aircraft and default scenary in both simulators, and the diferences between them are abysmal. If everyone prefers to think that "it's not too bad", ok, then continue to be the sim of second category in graphical development.

Apples and oranges. MSFS is a project funded by one of the largest and most profitable companies on the planet. They can afford to buy, use, license, etc any data they desire, and pay full time artists and tech guys to work on it and the tools to create it. FlightGear on the other hand is an open source, community project, with practically no financial support and which is limited to using only very freely licensed data, with content created solely by volunteers in their spare time. Of course their default scenery is going better than ours 99% of the time...if it weren't I'd be shocked.

A half dozen hobbyists working in their spare time without pay can hardly be expected to produce quality results as fast as a corporation spending millions on assets and full time employees. There are those of us that are working hard on making the scenery and tools better, both default and third party. To produce that content and achieve that goal takes time and a lot of hard work. Just complaining about it on the other hand, doesn't usually produce anything at all, no matter how much time passes. ;)

cheers!
The Austria Scenery Project - more info
fg-scenery-tools - gitorious | videos
fgcomgui - Open source, cross platform, gui front end for fgcom. more info

More random musings and doings can be found on my personal site. (work in progress)
User avatar
Tuxklok
 
Posts: 1320
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:04 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Callsign: Tuxklok / N1292P
OS: GNU/Linux

Re: The always great C172p cockpit improvement!!

Postby horacio » Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:41 pm

Tuxklok wrote:Apples and oranges. MSFS is a project funded by one of the largest and most profitable companies on the planet. They can afford to buy, use, license, etc any data they desire, and pay full time artists and tech guys to work on it and the tools to create it. FlightGear on the other hand is an open source, community project, with practically no financial support and which is limited to using only very freely licensed data, with content created solely by volunteers in their spare time. Of course their default scenery is going better than ours 99% of the time...if it weren't I'd be shocked.


Precisely I'm trying to separate apples and oranges. I have already said many times that FS is a payment simulator, with thousand of more posibilities than FG to do better aircrafts, scenaries, etc. So, users should stop giving explanations of what FG is or don't, when I give my personal impression of methodology of development in FG, specially when the truth is that FG is by far under other simulators, because it is. And this impression is that we are losing a valuable time and efforts if I see a project that already have several existing years, and still have not solved some basic points related with simulation. And this have nothing to do with if FS is paid or don't and have paid employers. To be a free open source project and to work with volunteers is not equivalent to work leaving behind a long trail of unfinished details (aircrafts, cockpits, scenaries, terrains, etc.).

Well, the truth is I'm starting to feel quite frustrated, because have tried to explain in several ways, and with many examples my vision (a personal impression), and all what I receive is explanations and explanations, which I need don't.

I see what I see, and the only thing I did was say it. I'm sorry if this bothers anyone. It has been not my intention.
HORACIO CONTRERAS
El Hangar de Horacio
... ¿y dónde está el Teniente Bello?
_____________________________________________________________________________
Vive FlightGear! Have you a Ñ on your keyboard? Spain-LatinAmerica FlightGear community!
User avatar
horacio
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:06 am
Location: SCVM, Chile
Callsign: CC-HCR
Version: 2
OS: Windows 7

Re: The always great C172p cockpit improvement!!

Postby statto » Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:54 pm

horacio wrote:Precisely I'm trying to separate apples and oranges. I have already said many times that FS is a payment simulator, with thousand of more posibilities than FG to do better aircrafts, scenaries, etc. So, users should stop giving explanations of what FG is or don't, when I give my personal impression of methodology of development in FG, specially when the truth is that FG is by far under other simulators, because it is. And this impression is that we are losing a valuable time and efforts if I see a project that already have several existing years, and still have not solved some basic points related with simulation. And this have nothing to do with if FS is paid or don't and have paid employers. To be a free open source project and to work with volunteers is not equivalent to work leaving behind a long trail of unfinished details (aircrafts, cockpits, scenaries, terrains, etc.)


I'm not frustrated with you - I still think if you fly the best planes over the best sceneries FG isn't "by far under other simulators".

You would be right to say there are not that many "best planes" or "best sceneries". I am working on the latter to the best of my ability.

There are many reasons why some of these things are not as developed as well as they could be. I'll just leave it at that for now, instead of talking about, say, the history of FlightGear scenery.

BTW, here's FlightGear 10 years ago: http://flightgear.org/Papers/UKUUG-2001/index.html
Custom Scenery available from http://www.stattosoftware.com/flightgear
statto
 
Posts: 2106
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:57 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cockpit development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests