Board index FlightGear Development Aircraft

Tower stacking and the GRTux Boeing-Vertol H-21C.

Questions and discussion about creating aircraft. Flight dynamics, 3d models, cockpits, systems, animation, textures.

Tower stacking and the GRTux Boeing-Vertol H-21C.

Postby wlbragg » Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:29 am

"Workhorse" was the U.S.A.F. name for the Piasecki YH-21, H-21A and H-21B tandem rotor helicopters?

When finished this should be easy enough to add to virtually any helicopter. I'll make sure to add it to the H-21C when ready.

The latest GRTux version appears to be no longer available unless someone has a copy of it somewhere.
I have this one
Image

But not this one
Image
Kansas(2-27-15)/Ohio/Midwest scenery development.
KEQA (2-27-15), 3AU, KRCP Airport Layout
User avatar
wlbragg
 
Posts: 4316
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:31 pm
Location: Kansas (Tornado Alley), USA
Callsign: WC2020
Version: next
OS: Win10/Debain/nVGT640

Re: Erickson S-64 Aircrance anyone?

Postby AndersG » Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:02 am

wlbragg wrote in Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:29 am:The latest GRTux version appears to be no longer available unless someone has a copy of it somewhere.


I hope the developed version is not lost - but do you remember if it was GPL?

I did some very preliminary work on a JSBSim FDM config for the H-21 this summer - it being an odd and relatively early animal in the helicopter family, having been used with floats and, additionally, having been used by the Swedish Navy and Airforce in the late 1950ies to the early 1970ies I have a bit of a soft spot for it. I didn't have much success, though - but I think the developed version might already have (had) a JSBSim FDM config - as the author was Gerard who also made the Piasecki HUP Retriever - which I also thought had a JSBSim FDM - but the one in FGAddon uses YASim.

With a system for sling loading in place, maybe I should rather look at a what-if version of the Piasecki Heliostat fiasco, instead. A part from the fiasco part it ticks many boxes... :)

(Or just maybe try to do something for any of all my other alpha-level aircraft etc. when/if I have any time...)
Callsign: SE-AG
Aircraft (uhm...): Submarine Scout, Zeppelin NT, ZF Navy free balloon, Nordstern, Hindenburg, Short Empire flying-boat, ZNP-K, North Sea class, MTB T21 class, U.S.S. Monitor, MFI-9B, Type UB I submarine, Gokstad ship, Renault FT.
AndersG
 
Posts: 2416
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:20 am
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Callsign: SE-AG
OS: Debian GNU Linux

Re: Erickson S-64 Aircrance anyone?

Postby lzu164 » Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:22 pm

Hi, H-21c was GPL according to GRTux webpage. By chance I just asked them today if it was available, but unfortunately they have pulled it out of public. Developed version had jsbsim fdm and that was my major intetest on it.

And great work on the skycrane. Should try it out someday.
lzu164
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:19 pm
Version: 2017.3.1

Re: Erickson S-64 Aircrance anyone?

Postby Thorsten » Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:03 pm

I have a copy of the H-21C (as depicted in Wayne's screenshot) on disk if anyone wants to update it and put it to FGAddon.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10168
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Erickson S-64 Aircrance anyone?

Postby wlbragg » Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:20 pm

I have a copy of the H-21C (as depicted in Wayne's screenshot) on disk if anyone wants to update it and put it to FGAddon.

If your talking about the updated version with the better panel, I'll do it.
Last edited by wlbragg on Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Kansas(2-27-15)/Ohio/Midwest scenery development.
KEQA (2-27-15), 3AU, KRCP Airport Layout
User avatar
wlbragg
 
Posts: 4316
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:31 pm
Location: Kansas (Tornado Alley), USA
Callsign: WC2020
Version: next
OS: Win10/Debain/nVGT640

Re: Erickson S-64 Aircrance anyone?

Postby Josh_grtuxteam » Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:15 am

Thorsten wrote in Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:03 pm:I have a copy of the H-21C (as depicted in Wayne's screenshot) on disk if anyone wants to update it and put it to FGAddon.



Are you sure you'v got any authorization from the Gérard family to put that opus to FGAddon.

Yes that update is GPL .
However it remain the Gerard family property ,
It does not mean you can freely include it to FGAddon, which is an official part of FlightGear distribution.

AND may i refresh your memory about this:
you wrote to me ( 11/10/2016 ) when i was asking to be granted for access to FGAddon.

".......I strongly suspect legally *someone* in the project needs to have your real
credentials- the rest of us never needs to know who you are. It's not so
much that we suspect there's a problem with the copyright of your material
- but what if e.g. FlightProSim claims that they have copyright of the
SR-71 and threatens to sue FG - and all we can say is 'we don't know the
name of the author'?"
[



Have you changed your mind ? To me your question remain actual, it remain a valuable argument.
PS: i don't have the link but you can easily find it within FG devel mailing list

Regards

Josh
User avatar
Josh_grtuxteam
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:58 pm
Location: France
Version: lastStable
OS: Linux OpenSUSE

Re: Erickson S-64 Aircrance anyone?

Postby Josh_grtuxteam » Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:23 am

wlbragg wrote in Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:20 pm:
I have a copy of the H-21C (as depicted in Wayne's screenshot) on disk if anyone wants to update it and put it to FGAddon./quote]
If your talking about the updated version with the better panel, I'll do it.


Before you start working on it, i guess it would be better we have a talk in order to avoid any conflict.

Cheerss

Josh
User avatar
Josh_grtuxteam
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:58 pm
Location: France
Version: lastStable
OS: Linux OpenSUSE

Re: Erickson S-64 Aircrance anyone?

Postby wkitty42 » Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:26 am

Josh_grtuxteam wrote in Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:15 am:Are you sure you'v got any authorization from the Gérard family to put that opus to FGAddon.

Yes that update is GPL .
However it remain the Gerard family property ,
It does not mean you can freely include it to FGAddon, which is an official part of FlightGear distribution.

not if it is GPL... if there's another version that is not GPL, then that one may not be distributed by FG or others... since it is GPL, it may be distributed, though... even if it is out of date with the current non-GPL version...
"You get more air close to the ground," said Angalo. "I read that in a book. You get lots of air low down, and not much when you go up."
"Why not?" said Gurder.
"Dunno. It's frightened of heights, I guess."
User avatar
wkitty42
 
Posts: 4972
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:46 pm
Location: central NC, USA
Callsign: wk42
Version: git next
OS: Kubuntu 14.04.5

Re: Erickson S-64 Aircrance anyone?

Postby Josh_grtuxteam » Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:46 am

wkitty42 wrote in Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:26 am:
Josh_grtuxteam wrote in Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:15 am:Are you sure you'v got any authorization from the Gérard family to put that opus to FGAddon.

Yes that update is GPL .
However it remain the Gerard family property ,
It does not mean you can freely include it to FGAddon, which is an official part of FlightGear distribution.

not if it is GPL... if there's another version that is not GPL, then that one may not be distributed by FG or others... since it is GPL, it may be distributed, though... even if it is out of date with the current non-GPL version...


Hi, wkitty42

Have you read the Thorsten argument.
He was not sure about the identity of the author , why would you be sure today, you don't know the author how could you be sure it is really GPL ? :D
We can not use an argument and it's opposite
Cheers

Josh
User avatar
Josh_grtuxteam
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:58 pm
Location: France
Version: lastStable
OS: Linux OpenSUSE

Re: Erickson S-64 Aircrance anyone?

Postby wlbragg » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:04 am

I would really like to not go down this path again.

If there is anyway we can all just agree to do what is needed to get Gerard and his supporting developers work included in FlightGear's fgaddon repository. That would be the best way to honor the contributions of a fellow enthusiast. This project is built on the backs of such people and I for one only wish to honor those people and their contributions.
Kansas(2-27-15)/Ohio/Midwest scenery development.
KEQA (2-27-15), 3AU, KRCP Airport Layout
User avatar
wlbragg
 
Posts: 4316
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:31 pm
Location: Kansas (Tornado Alley), USA
Callsign: WC2020
Version: next
OS: Win10/Debain/nVGT640

Re: Erickson S-64 Aircrance anyone?

Postby Thorsten » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:12 am

Yes that update is GPL .
However it remain the Gerard family property ,
It does not mean you can freely include it to FGAddon, which is an official part of FlightGear distribution.


Actually any GPL material can be freely included in FGAddon - this is quite legal and does not require your further permission - regardless of the undisputed copyright of Gerard.

Also, Josh, please note that you are not Gerard, so while we generally respect the wishes of the original author, the original author did include his material in FGAddon - so it's you who is disrespectful here regarding a clearly expressed intention.

Before you start working on it, i guess it would be better we have a talk in order to avoid any conflict.


Given that there've been pages and pages of talk involving several developers already, that's an interesting suggestion...

If there is anyway we can all just agree to do what is needed to get Gerard and his supporting developers work included in FlightGear's fgaddon repository.


Usually that'd be my policy as well, but past history shows that Josh & Co are just out to play games with the project - supposedly the material is to be included in FGAddon, but not by any people involved in the project, it is alternatively claimed to be disrespectful to work with the files or to not work with the files,...

The background seems to be that Josh & Co would like commit access and try to use Gerard's material as leverage, but given both the anonymity desired and the nature of hacks found in the material by various reviewers, that's not supported by the core team

So at this point, if anyone wants to review the content for GPL complicance, absence of dangerous hacks etc. , we might as well follow Gerard's intention and bring the material to FGAddon - via a known and identifiable committer.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10168
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Erickson S-64 Aircrance anyone?

Postby Josh_grtuxteam » Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:57 pm

Thorsten wrote in Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:12 am:

...................
So at this point, if anyone wants to review the content for GPL complicance, absence of dangerous hacks etc. , we might as well follow Gerard's intention and bring the material to FGAddon - via a known and identifiable committer.


It is sad to read such words. This is an offbeat (not to say stupid ) remark.
Following Gerard's intention would be rather difficult since our friend has passed away several years ago.

Our purpose is only to ensure the respect and maintenance of his work despite the obstacles.

We just had, Wayne and I, an exchange of mail during which I could explain to him why it was impossible for him to put the work (every stuff) of Gerard in FGAddon.

I have also received a nice message from Curt , giving some useful explanations and recommendations.
So we "grtuxteam" ( or "josh & Co" => to please to Thorsten :lol: ) will follow Curt's recommendations which should solve the problem and please to everybody.
When we get close i'll keep you all updated.

@Curt thanks a lot



For me the debate is closed

Josh
User avatar
Josh_grtuxteam
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:58 pm
Location: France
Version: lastStable
OS: Linux OpenSUSE

Re: Tower stacking and the GRTux Boeing-Vertol H-21C.

Postby Thorsten » Sat Nov 11, 2017 6:52 am

It is sad to read such words. This is an offbeat (not to say stupid ) remark.


Personally I'd be very pleased if this time this doesn't end in playing games. So far, a long history of trying to offer you constructive avenues to proceed has yielded nothing but insults from your side. Maybe Curt has more luck.

Our purpose is only to ensure the respect and maintenance of his work despite the obstacles.


As pointed out long ago, this could have been most easily accomplished long ago by picking someone you trust and who has commit rights and letting that person do the review / maintenance for you.

I frankly don't see how this can be accomplished by trying to undo GPL licensing and claiming re-distribution of material which carries a clear GPL notice needs your permission (which it most emphatically does not).

The 'obstacles' you mention are, unfortunately, things like hacks used airplane side to overwrite user settings, they're created by yourself and can be removed by yourself, and they're quite real problems. 'respect' is not a valid category to judge hacks.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10168
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Tower stacking and the GRTux Boeing-Vertol H-21C.

Postby Thorsten » Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:41 am

After conducting some discussions and thinking of my own - I believe we need at least one decision from grtuxteam now.

***

The GPL is designed to grant the freedom to developers to re-use, adapt and re-distribute material such that development does not rest on the goodwill of any single person. The GPL explicitly does not require consent of the original copyright holder.

Somewhat in contrast, the FG policy is to respect creator's rights where reasonably possible. That means that the active maintainer gets to coordinate development and people are encouraged to go through his upstream repository with any changes. Also, should the original creator decide to not place his work on FGAddon but in a 3rd party hangar, the project does not actively seek it out and copy it to set up a competition (even where the legal right to do so exists).

***


I have in my possession a package of aircraft downloaded from the GRTuxhangar repository before it was deleted. These aircraft were all originally started by Gerard Robin and the package contains the Alouette-III, the H-21C-Shawnee, the Lynx-WG13, the P-38-Lightning, the S-51-Dragonfly, the F-8E-Crusader, the HUP-Retriever, the Noratlas, the PBY-Catalina, the SR71-BlackBird.

All these aircraft (in an earlier development stage) are found on FGAddon where Gerard placed them.

As not unusual for a GPL project, there is content created by different people in the package - in addition to Gerard's material, there is work by the grtuxteam - but also by others: To name two explicitly, there is development by PINTO as well as code by myself. The copyright question is hence somewhat murky as usual, but due to the license, this is not an issue.

The development is based on originally GPL licensed work, the download link identified a GPL license, the individual planes in the package contain GPL licensing notes and Josh has confirmed in this conversations that the content is GPL. So I think there's no question here.

***

While the GPL grants us the right to re-distribute the package content, we have so far not done so - largely based on the notion that you're good to your word and seek your own way to bring these aircraft to FGAddon.

However, the situation changed and your actions now have become destructive rather than constructive - not only have you deleted the repositories hosting the package, but you also actively seek to hinder people wanting to work with the content under GPL - as is their right, and you're also trying to hold work by people such as PINTO effectively hostage.

In discussions, I've also heard the position from other developers that FG should actively seek out and re-distribute modifications of all planes which were originally placed by their creators into the care of the project (and in these cases effectively compete with 3rd party hangars).

***

The question then arises whether you, grtuxteam, want to act as maintainers and upstream repository of FGAddon or not. In the past, people (such as PINTO) have been directed to use the grtuxteam repository as upstream hangar. However, this setup requires that updates are made to the downstream hangar, i.e. FGAddon.

***

a) If you opt to act as maintainers, you need to make such updates via merge requests or by picking a person you trust to commit on your behalf. You will be responsible for coordinating further development under an obligation to work constructively with anyone interested.

***

b) If you opt to not act as maintainers, please let us know whether you intend to set up your own 3rd party GPL hangar to distribute the work - generally FG would not try to compete with you by distributing mere copies of your content. However, in this case what may happen is that anyone else who is interested can become maintainer of the FGAddon version and develop it further without consulting you first.

***

c) If you opt to not act as maintainers and not set up a 3rd part GPL hangar of your own, FG will start to distribute the package content under GPL eventually. They will certainly be made available to anyone who wants to work with the content and I will have no hesitation to help to commit such work to FGAddon - equally without consulting you first.

***

I hope this strikes a reasonably balance between the interests of all interested parties - past, present and future developers. We have no interest to steal your reputation or set up a competition, but likewise it's not acceptable that development is actively hindered - there is a consensus among the FG developers that this is not part of the project policy.

Please let us know which alternative you prefer - if I don't hear from you, I'll assume you are not interested in doing anything which defaults to c).
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10168
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Tower stacking and the GRTux Boeing-Vertol H-21C.

Postby Josh_grtuxteam » Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:19 pm

Thorsten wrote in Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:41 am:After conducting some discussions and thinking of my own - I believe we need at least one decision from grtuxteam now.

***

The GPL is designed to grant the freedom to developers to re-use, adapt and re-distribute material such that development does not rest on the goodwill of any single person. The GPL explicitly does not require consent of the original copyright holder.

Somewhat in contrast, the FG policy is to respect creator's rights where reasonably possible. That means that the active maintainer gets to coordinate development and people are encouraged to go through his upstream repository with any changes. Also, should the original creator decide to not place his work on FGAddon but in a 3rd party hangar, the project does not actively seek it out and copy it to set up a competition (even where the legal right to do so exists).



To fix your mind, not sure you can understand , since any dialog with you is definitively impossible, here part of a letter i wrote to Wayne:

=========>
Three years ago when GRTuxTeam ( most of the team members were Gerard's friend)s
took the decision to recover the work done by Gerard we did notice there was a lot of
sketches and perfect models which could be used in the state .
Only some minors adjustment were necessary to get it working against FG version of
the time.
Some of these models were similar to the ones already committed years ago by Gerard
himself.
However those last generation were not derivative but new ones
Gerard did redraw the entire models. Everything is different and new.
These version were said Freeware, or "nothing" license related
....................

Unfortunately an argument has appeared against us (see Thorsten's answer "see Note below" ).
I remain a virtual character, because for personal reasons I can not devolve my identity.
Josh is not my name nor my first name and i do use a common mail box.

The danger here is that the choice of GPL for these models was conditioned by Gerard's
heirs. they can always say that the presence of these models in Filghtgear with the GPL
license is a good theft.
This places Flightgear in a delicate position because no physical person (*I do not exist, i
am only virtual*) has explicitly taken the responsibility to place these models under GPL.
FlightGear becomes responsible for hijacking.
My conclusion you can't go to put those models to FGAddon.
Since most of the material were not originally GPL , remaining under Gerard family control.

=<<<<<<<<<<<<


GPL was the decision of a virtual '"non real Guy" you can't see ME, you can"t know who i am, in such case you won't be able to proof that this hangar is really GPL'zed, since given by NOBODY

Yes , SR71 JSBSim FDM has got some patch from Pinto , yes the same SR71 ( and Crusader ) are using your flame effect copied within the package ( as far i know was your request to an other guy also named Josh ) , yes the Alouette-III has got some benefit from an original AH1S ( coming from Dave Culp hangar Creative Common License ) up to you to try to get in touch with them, and to extract and to use for your own usage.
However more of the 95% of material are originally from Gerard never committed and as long i can read the original documents, the NEW HANGAR related, those material are or Freeware or "nothing",

You can only use the existing old materials, which was originally committed by Gerard himself (2007 ? , and more recently committed on brother-in-law Ahmad request (20013 or 2014 ?).

Are you sure you want to put FlighGear community in a very bad position regarding the Law ?
Acting in a way which will create a big confusion.


My virtuality ( let's say GRTuxTeam ) does not keep me off to have a huge respect for that great FlighGear, sophisticated entity.
It was not my intention to create such turbulence, like said i started stepping on the wrong mark line since we were trusting in rules, which are actually fake
We are all "Josh" responsible for that error and we apologize.


[NOTE: extracted from FG devel mailing Thorsten message
I strongly
suspect legally *someone* in the project needs to have your real
credentials- the rest of us never needs to know who you are. It's not so
much that we suspect there's a problem with the copyright of your material
- but what if e.g. FlightProSim claims that they have copyright of the
SR-71 and threatens to sue FG - and all we can say is 'we don't know the
name of the author'?


Josh_grtuxteam

BTW: Before engaging that adventure, have you got from Curt his own opinion ? i am sure his own decision will be the best.
User avatar
Josh_grtuxteam
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:58 pm
Location: France
Version: lastStable
OS: Linux OpenSUSE

Next

Return to Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests