Board index FlightGear Support Flying

Best Military Aircrafts

Controlling your aircraft, using the autopilot etc.

Best Military Aircrafts

Postby SidarDeha » Thu May 19, 2022 5:36 pm

deleted post
Last edited by SidarDeha on Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SidarDeha
Retired
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue May 17, 2022 11:48 am

Re: Best Military Aircrafts

Postby A-6 B/N » Sat May 28, 2022 3:25 pm

Through your link I found an A-6E titled Rudolf339/A-6E. It looks like it's on GitHub, but I have no experience downloading aircraft from 3rd party hangars. How do I actually download this aircraft into Flight Gear?
A-6 B/N
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2021 3:26 pm

Re: Best Military Aircrafts

Postby TheEagle » Sat May 28, 2022 5:01 pm

@A-6B/N: on the repository page, there's a green button labeled "Code". Click on that, you'll find a link labeled "Download ZIP". Click on that, which will download a ZIP archive of the repository. When the download has finished, unzip the archive into some folder (for example "/home/user/fgaircraft") so that the -set.xml file is located at "/home/user/fgaircraft/<aircraft-name>/<aircraft>-set.xml". Then, in the launcher go to the Addon tab and add "/home/user/fgaircraft" to the list of custom aircraft folders. Restart FG, and you should be able to use the plane.
Cessna 210 (Wiki)
My other aircraft: my wiki profile !
Other: FGTools (GitHub)
World tour: View on SkyVector
Please consider donating $1 / €1 to help me finance a new camera !
User avatar
TheEagle
 
Posts: 3411
Joined: Sat May 01, 2021 3:27 pm
Location: France
Pronouns: You, he
Callsign: F-EAGLE
IRC name: none
Version: Git next
OS: Ubuntu Studio 22.04

Re: Best Military Aircrafts

Postby SidarDeha » Sat May 28, 2022 6:49 pm

deleted message
Last edited by SidarDeha on Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SidarDeha
Retired
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue May 17, 2022 11:48 am

Re: Best Military Aircrafts

Postby Ysop » Sat May 28, 2022 8:12 pm

I am not sure, if we need to promote github-versions.

Normal way should be (IMHO(!)) to develop via github, inviting interested persons to have a look, feedback, contribute and moving the files into FGAddon, when ready for release.
Then it is clearer for the public eye, that FGFS is an excellent, complete package.
There are enough items, which are confusing for newcomers.

Kindly take FGmember items from your list. We are somewhat .... divorced.
User avatar
Ysop
 
Posts: 1348
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:06 pm
Version: 2020.3.18
OS: ubuntu 22.04

Re: Best Military Aircrafts

Postby Thorsten » Sun May 29, 2022 6:36 am

Starting an FG Wiki page with

There are better aircrafts than FlightGear's official repo has.


is frankly inviting trouble, as you're using official FG infrastructure to bad-talk the same project which supplies the infrastructure.

It also raises the question - better by what standard? Who is the judge of that, are you in any way qualified to assign quality levels to aircraft?

And, as Ysop has pointed out, it brings an obvious point - is there any reason not to simply include these aircraft in FGAddon - which is, after all, the strong point of the GPL license - you don't need to go chasin 50 packages with 50 different licenses, you can legally pull most developments into one centralized place. Would your work not better be invested to improve the FGAddon content than to try to create the 5th parallel infrastructure (yes, you're not the first to have the idea to create THE repository of all the good aircraft)?

(Btw. the plural of 'aircraft' is also 'aircraft' - the plural 'crafts' exists in the English language e.g. in 'arts and crafts' - but then the word means something else than a vehicle - 'aircrafts' isn't a correct form).
Thorsten
 
Posts: 12490
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:33 am

Re: Best Military Aircrafts

Postby erik » Sun May 29, 2022 7:15 am

I have to back Thorsten here.

Recently I started to improve a, which I rated, 5-star aircraft when I was satisfied with it years ago and which I maintain and came to realize that after the modifications even a 5-star rating is relative. The model is now maybe 10 times as nice as before. The 5-star rating was relative to all other aircraft at that time but techniques and skills progress and now you get even better models.

I think I see why people want to rate aircraft after all you want to fly the nicer ones. But is an airliner having the passenger cabin modeled to the last detail really better than one which doesn't (leaving all other aspects aside)? I'm not so sure.

Rating aircraft has been tried in numerous different ways. It started with a tag which could be alpha, beta, early-production and production and now the launcher shows a star-rating for different components like cockpit, exterior, FDM, and systems. But in the end it's all relative. Next comes the guy who spends hundreds of hours to implement system details down to tiny oil-pressure leaks which only manifest themselves after 10 8-hour flights and every other 5-star rating aircraft is being degraded.

Oh and I agree that wiki article should only be about aircraft under FlightGear control (FGAddon)
You could mention there are other repositories but rating them is up to them I would say.

Erik
Current: Parachutist, Paraglider, Pterosaur, Pilatus PC-9M and variants, ERCO Ercoupe, Fokker Dr.1, Fokker 50, Fokker 100
Less active: Cessna T-37, T-38, Santa Claus. Previous: General Dynamics F-16. Worked on: Wright Flyer
erik
 
Posts: 2244
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:41 pm

Re: Best Military Aircrafts

Postby SidarDeha » Sun May 29, 2022 9:10 am

deleted message
Last edited by SidarDeha on Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SidarDeha
Retired
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue May 17, 2022 11:48 am

Re: Best Military Aircrafts

Postby SidarDeha » Sun May 29, 2022 9:18 am

deleted message
Last edited by SidarDeha on Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SidarDeha
Retired
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue May 17, 2022 11:48 am

Re: Best Military Aircrafts

Postby TheEagle » Sun May 29, 2022 1:24 pm

SidarDeha wrote in Sun May 29, 2022 9:18 am:BTW projects are available on GitHub why don't we upload them? There is a risk that they may get deleted. (Thinking the worst possibility)

Why should anyone invest time developing an aircraft, just to delete it then ? Not that it's impossible, but VERY unlikely. BTW - there is another possibility of saving those repos from deletion - creating your own fork ! :wink:
Cessna 210 (Wiki)
My other aircraft: my wiki profile !
Other: FGTools (GitHub)
World tour: View on SkyVector
Please consider donating $1 / €1 to help me finance a new camera !
User avatar
TheEagle
 
Posts: 3411
Joined: Sat May 01, 2021 3:27 pm
Location: France
Pronouns: You, he
Callsign: F-EAGLE
IRC name: none
Version: Git next
OS: Ubuntu Studio 22.04

Re: Best Military Aircrafts

Postby S&J » Sun May 29, 2022 6:59 pm

SidarDeha wrote in Sun May 29, 2022 9:18 am:
Thorsten wrote in Sun May 29, 2022 6:36 am:you can legally pull most developments into one centralized place.

Yeah this would be better. I have same idea too but it's not. What should we do? PM all developers to upload their projects to sourceforge?


Just so we get the facts correct, creating a single place to download content of both GPL and CC and any other licence the author cared for was FGMembers objective. Only the zealots here decided doing so was a threat to Flightgear addon and trumped up the 'copyright violation' argument and deplatformed them as everyone here can see they're attempting to do now in this thread.

This isn't for the benefit of players of FG.
"Stay away from negative people.They have a problem for every solution." - Albert Einstein
S&J
 
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2020 7:31 pm

Re: Best Military Aircrafts

Postby Maerchenprinz » Sun May 29, 2022 7:30 pm

[...]as everyone here can see they're attempting to do now in this thread.

Thanks for uttering your opinion that others shouldn't utter their opinion...
FGMEMBERS was never attacked, it was critizised, it still exists; It was critizised for creating a problem where there was already a solution (and for other reasons, see fgwiki-article)...
Anyway, it's Sunday, I have coffee, so I put my feet up and stay away from negative people! :wink:

Ciao,

Adrian

EDIT: Is that article/statement on fgwiki, or is it somewhere else? Not sure...
User avatar
Maerchenprinz
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:24 pm
Location: Bochum, it's better, much better than you think!
Callsign: Adrian

Re: Best Military Aircrafts

Postby Thorsten » Mon May 30, 2022 6:48 am

Only the zealots here decided doing so was a threat to Flightgear addon and trumped up the 'copyright violation' argument and deplatformed them as everyone here can see they're attempting to do now in this thread.


Well... you left out a few points.

First of all, there were actual copyright violations - some intentional changes of license files by founding FGMembers characters. There were also unintentional copyright violations caused by the idea of having a no review policy for content, so naturally content could be submitted by anyone, even those ignorant or not caring for the licenses. Then there was the insistence to go against a consensus that had been discussed on the FG list for several years and finally agreed upon, that is to use SVN to host aircraft, whereas the FGM proponents insisted that the only wisdom would be GIT.

Then of course were Nazi allegations and badmouthing of everyone who argued against breaking said consensus or relaxing copyright standards, actual threats to FG developers, the use of FG infrastructure like this forum or the Wiki to bad-talk the project and all these other niceties supposedly in the interest of 'the community' - and at that point they were - reluctantly - deplatformed as a it was evident that any constructive dialog was impossible.

Just to get the facts correct - we wouldn't want to ommit the Nazi allegations, threats, sabotage attempts and all that, would we?

The FGMembers statement is here by the way:

https://www.flightgear.org/fgmembers-statement/


As for what can be seen in this thread - the FG Wiki is the FG Wiki not your private opinion page or advertisement space - you can not use it to claim 'I offer far better aircraft than FG' and expect no reaction. If anyone feels unable to work constructively for the FG project, then simply do it elsewhere, not on the FG Wiki or in the FG forum.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 12490
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:33 am


Return to Flying

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests