Board index FlightGear The FlightGear project

Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Questions about the FlightGear organisation, website, wiki etc.

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Necolatis » Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:57 pm

Vitos, OPRF were also told that its only a civilian sim.

But we thought about it and decided to do military for these reasons:

1: Only Torsten D. seems to have a strong stance against taking damage from weapons. He is a core dev, but only 1 of several. (not Thorsten R., Torsten D. without a 'h')
2: F-14 with working missiles have been one of 5 core aircraft that shipped with FG, that was a strong signal to us.
3: Our weapons only do damage if the receiver has damage enabled.
4: Bombable exists and there has even been talk of including it in FG. With bombable you can take damage from weapons. Nobody seemed to mind.
5: We have strong rules about not shooting at civilians, even though all that happens is an annoying MP chat message.
6: We have rule against any working Nuclear weapons. Due to the outrage one of them caused some years ago in these forums.

So OPRF decided to push ahead and do full mil sim stuff. We have tons of fun, and have over 110 discord members. We mostly fight on our own server though.

Until now, nobody have complained that I know of.

But foremost we just like to fly, many of us also fly/develop civilian and hang out in the main FG discord server also.

We are not a hostile fork, much of what we develop (GPL 2.0) trickles back into FGAddon, fgdata. We report bugs to the core devs and jsbsim. We help people on forums and writes stuff on wiki.
And anyone is welcome to download the aircraft we work on, also those that are not pushed to fgaddon yet.

And couple of us also fly the SU-15, its nice that you finally made an English manual. Its a nice and advanced aircraft.

There is room for everyone, live and let live. And let the past be the past.
"Airplane travel is nature's way of making you look like your passport photo."
— Al Gore
User avatar
Necolatis
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:40 am
Location: EKOD
Callsign: Leto
IRC name: Neco
Version: 2019.1.2
OS: Windows 10

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby swampthing » Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:50 am

Seems these people like what has been done. I'm a bit concerned about the path they are going. ;) the arms race will never end. https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2019-10-21. I suppose we can blame OPRF and me being a founding member for the end of the world. 8)
www.opredflag.com
I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. -Thomas Jefferson-
swampthing
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:10 am
Location: Missouri
Callsign: swamp
Version: 2018.2
OS: multiple

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby wkitty42 » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:22 am

vitos wrote in Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:32 pm:Well You was asked, no edit was made, and it's official newsletter. it means FG community approved OPRF, since that, and other mentioned facts, it's not civil.

you are incorrect, sir... FG community has not approved or disapproved OPRF... they are a group of like minded folks who got together on their own to develop, enhance, and fly military craft... nothing more... J-Mav's personal story being published in the FG newsletter is nothing more than you writing your local newspaper an OPED and them publishing it for no more reason than it was presented to be published... you are making mountains out of mole hills, sir...

signed,
disinterested 3rd party trying very hard to understand what you write
"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: 5765
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:46 pm
Location: central NC, USA
Callsign: wk42
Version: git next
OS: Kubuntu 14.04.5

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Thorsten » Tue Nov 19, 2019 7:06 am

The purpose of vitos' re-animation of this thread is still unclear.

If you read page 1, it's all nicely explained what the consensus means in practice. It states

* it has not been formalized as a hard rule
* aircraft maintainers (even back then) have already committed craft with working weapons systems
* a general weapons framework in the core system would face an uphill struggle being committed
* there's people who are generally interested in military aviation, but respect the stance of core developers who want a civilian sim (Erik explicitly speaks up, I would be another example)
* and it's also explained that I'm not trying to push my own agenda (I rather like military aviation, I've learned lots of flying with Falcon 4.0...) but merely report what the stance of the core group (at that time) was

So the 'scandal' vitos is trying to create here (there have been long planes with working weapons in the repository) is actually not news, it's been acknowledged that this is so and it's been clarified how that is different from a generic weapons and damage simulation core-side (which would potentially allow to make weapons act on every plane rather than an opt-in basis).

***

We have TorstenD's verbatim statement


I dislike the use of FlightGear for the simulation of weapons, bombing, dogfighting or other offensive actions and I discourage any activities going in that direction.
I can accept (though I don't like) implementing military aircraft into FlightGear as long as the main purpose is simulation of the aviation aspect.


and for fun we can compare this with vitos' former stance on the matter:

vitos wrote in Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:22 am:
Ok. I do not approve dogfighting games really. If someone win, someone lose, so there is something sad in it, always. Even tragical if it goes too far. Really, really sad.

At my opinion, human shall not play with human at all.


So we may conclude vitos' has come around quite a bit, yet can't somehow fathom that FG developers would do likewise - somehow his year-old statements are no longer relevant, but everyone else's are.

***

Anyway - I see nothing wrong with what OPRF is doing and have never seen anything wrong. I really appreciate the idea of strict rules of engagement and wish you guys lots of fun in your events.

I would think a double opt-in (the aircraft maintainer has to implement the option of weapons damage to the plane, the user has to activate the function and agree to be damaged in an MP environment) is the way to go in the future. And that's really all there is to say.

***

I frankly do not see the point of vitos trying to cook up a problem from things that happened years ago, bringing things as 'news' which were discussed openly and honestly in 2015. But as usual, you will find that it's either vitos' view or nothing, so the mere fact that you've dared to implement a missile system that is not his already means damnation 8)
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11196
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby amue » Tue Nov 19, 2019 7:35 am

Thorsten wrote in Tue Nov 19, 2019 7:06 am:..., it's been acknowledged that this is so and it's been clarified how that is different from a generic weapons and damage simulation core-side (which would potentially allow to make weapons act on every plane rather than an opt-in basis).

"A generic weapons and damage simulation core-side" could also be work on a strictly opt-in basis. Switch the weapon and damage function per default off. And have options, e.g. "Allow damage on own aircraft" and "See other weapons", ... . I don't see that much of a difference (regarding opt-in) between core-side and addon-side weapon/damage support.
amue
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 9:13 am

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby vitos » Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:03 am

What I am talking about, is as if that official forum had, since 2010, option, allowing anyone - though, anyone putting USA flag at userpic - to choose someone from that, and any, conversation here, and then some, provided by forum engine, automatic script would, on itself, to post messages as "missile of ... is ... meters from ...", when, finally, "BOOOM!" here, visible to anyone. Anyone who do not want to participate at things as that including.

And information of that script would be at official newsletter.

Then some third-party guys would even add some other, easy installable, option, to being, at absence of some evasive actions, really banned for some time by results of that script working, and information of that would be at official newsletter, with other news, as news what someone became virtual Colonel with it, as they have ranking system.

Is that sounds peaceful and civilian?

And then someone would be blamed for working attempts to push such script out to some parallel space at least, to make results of all that invisible to people who did not clearly approved they want to participate, by mark of what he doing is "military simulation" and "we have urge intense to stay civilian", and "we are trying to solve that problem with script".

All that had occur with multiplayer of that simulator and its newsletter already, so. Nearly for ten real years, half of which I was blamed at its forum comparative way.

I nave limiting timer for anything, at deadline there got to be conclusion of yes or not type. My first message of MiG-15 was of 26.04.2010 at Russian forum flightgear.ru, idea to make something with it came bit earlier.

With case of that simulator decision is not, and obviously obvious way. It had built for years, and any actions at final moment could not change it.

So, I made my conclusion, of all of you - you all at sum are f... b.., thus more approved by community guys are more f... b... than others - and I am leaving otta here completely, just let's make it all clear.

Farewell.
Last edited by vitos on Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:51 am, edited 6 times in total.
Waste of time: too unprofitable for work, too exhausting for hobby.
User avatar
vitos
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:10 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Callsign: vitos
IRC name: vitos
Version: 3.4
OS: Debian

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Thorsten » Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:35 am

And information of that script was at official newsletter.


FYI, the newsletter is a wiki page - you could have written anything you like about your stuff there. There's no approval by the core group required to add to the newsletter. Conversely, the fact that something appears in the newsletter doesn't mean it's endorsed by the core group or even a majority of the community.

I don't see that much of a difference (regarding opt-in) between core-side and addon-side weapon/damage support.


I do, but then again, I do have experience in modeling aircraft damage.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11196
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Necolatis » Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:28 am

vitos wrote in Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:03 am:And information of that script was at official newsletter.


Sigh.. Vitos, just to underline that newsletter/wiki is for everyone to edit, I just added a small review of SU-15 on the November 2019 newsletter. It took longer to start the aircraft than writing the review.
I even mentioned its missiles, and no lightning strike has hit me yet, nobody deleted it. The wiki is not only core devs that tell us news. Its members of the community that makes the news for the users.
Jmav16 just had a positive experience that he wanted to share with others, that's it, nothing more.

I want to add then that I respect TorstenD's view also. But he was the only one who made that stance clear a couple years back when I tried to ask around for the core devs current stance on the matter.
Which I why (I at least) felt somewhat comfortable proceeding with weapons that can disable systems in another aircraft.

If James, Edwards, Curt, Erik, Thorsten, TorstenD, Richard and the other devs had a formal statement written on the wiki that they don't want it, I would want to remove that ability.
Or make a system so it only work on non-official servers or something that they could accept.

But all there is as far as I remember, paraphrased as I don't remember where I read it: Flightgear is primary a civilian simulator.
Or something like that, that implies that its not forbidden to make weapons that damage.

We enjoy our weapons, but we also (at least me) want to be part of the FG community. Not fork FG community like FGMembers did, if the core devs want it to go in another direction than us.

OPRF is not hostile towards you Vitos, neither do I suspect we are favored by the core devs over you, there should be room for all type of opt-in weapon systems in my view. But yes, the 'noisy' system needs to become silent. I am aware that some people (mostly kids I suspect) shot indiscriminately at other planes, which can be detriment to a pilot that just want have a quiet flight.
"Airplane travel is nature's way of making you look like your passport photo."
— Al Gore
User avatar
Necolatis
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:40 am
Location: EKOD
Callsign: Leto
IRC name: Neco
Version: 2019.1.2
OS: Windows 10

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Johan G » Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:06 pm

vitos wrote in Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:03 am:What I am talking about, is as if that official forum had, since 2010, option, allowing anyone - though, anyone putting USA flag at userpic - to choose someone from that, and any, conversation here, and then some, provided by forum engine, automatic script would, on itself, to post messages as "missile of ... is ... meters from ...", when, finally, "BOOOM!" here, visible to anyone.

There are more aircraft than those from USA or even the western block with missile/MPChat scripts. There are eastern block aircraft and other as well. :roll:
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)
Johan G
Moderator
 
Posts: 5546
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:33 pm
Location: Sweden
Callsign: SE-JG
IRC name: Johan_G
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Windows 7, 32 bit

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby 5H1N0B1 » Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:00 am

@Thorsten :
I would think a double opt-in (the aircraft maintainer has to implement the option of weapons damage to the plane, the user has to activate the function and agree to be damaged in an MP environment) is the way to go in the future. And that's really all there is to say.

I think that this is actually what is done : To be "damaged" you need to check the "MP messaging box". By checking it, you allow yourself to give damage to persons who checked but also, you authorize taking damage.
(If you can give you can receive)

Btw; checking it, disable the ability to refuel in the air, to re arm (missiles and guns) in the air, to check the multiplayer on the FG map (we are using advanced bur not perfect radar and there is fun of fly in a way that makes you disappear from your opponent radar) , or also time warp or stuff like that.

Anyway nothing is frozen and all idea can be taken in account :)
5H1N0B1
"Each day, with every person you meet, there is something to learn"
5H1N0B1
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:36 am
Location: France
Callsign: 5H1N0B1
IRC name: _5H1N0B1
Version: GIT
OS: Ubuntu

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Thorsten » Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:29 am

I think that this is actually what is done


Yes - and I expressed my agreement with what is done and see it as the way forward :D
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11196
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby bugman » Wed Nov 20, 2019 9:57 am

As far as I'm aware:

  1. A military framework will not go into the core repositories. But it is acceptable as a 3rd party effort. Improvements or general features that can have a non-military purpose can flow back into the core.
  2. All military engagements should be opt-in. Someone flying via MP should never see any missiles/bullets coming their way or any automated chat messages along those lines. Some kid attacking you cannot be avoided, but that's why you can 'ignore' them and they will disappear.

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1719
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby erik » Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:27 pm

I think one reason was also to keep everybody from all over the world happy. TorstenD, being from Germany, has to carry a history he doesn't like and this was one way to deal with it. I respect that, and it's a good starting point.

That said, it was never formally prohibited to add an external framework which does add the functionality.

Erik
erik
 
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:41 pm

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Hooray » Sun Dec 08, 2019 12:04 pm

Actually, this isn't about TorstenD at all - the position has been prevalent long before TorstenD (or other contributors from Germany for that matter) showed up on the FlightGear developers mailing list (or in the commit logs for that matter).

There's a really long discussion/flame war dating back to the early 2000s where people were discussing the props & cons of adding combat functionality to FlightGear, including even a dedicated "FGScript" language to script combat functionality - the general consensus back then was (and apparently still is), that military aircraft are fine - but the core itself will not receive combat-specific functionality, but that the infrastructure to allow people (aircraft developers) to model such functionality can indeed be added.

Many of the core developers with a background in aviation ultimately agreed that sooner or later, said infrastructure would also come in handy to simulate non-military aspects of aviation, such as environment influence affecting aircraft performance (think icing)

And that's actually what happened (think about FDM-changes, e.g. external forces, support for payloads, sub-FDMs etc).

It is also worth keeping in mind that some of the key contributors back then did have a military background, but still the "consensus" was that FlightGear remain a civilian flight simulator, while providing the toolbox to allow people to pursue all aspects of aviation, without adding any dedicated combat/military infrastructure to the sim.

Like Erik said, FlightGear is sufficiently generic so that external capabilities can be easily added, including an external FDM, or a completely separate multiplayer environment.

Also, thanks to FlightGear's enormous configurability, you don't even need to touch the core to add all sorts of neat functionality, that may be beyond the scope of the project - something which flug illustrated in a remarkable fashion when he used the Nasal scripting language to implement a scripted dog fighting system long before "addons" were even a thing.

It isn't impossible or even difficult to turn FlightGear into something that it was designed for, something that's been shown over and over again - you don't need core development support or endorsement, and you don't just need to look at flug's work, but also all the other stuff that people came up with, including even spaceflight support, without anyone coding a dedicated space fdm, and without anybody implementing a new terrain engine.

It's much more about disabling hard-coded assumptions and then starting over with an "empty sheet of paper" to see how the combination of XML, properties, scripting, property rules, 3D models, effects/shaders and 3D models can be used to create something entirely new.

Likewise, it would certainly be much easier get patches committed to disable certain hard-coded assumptions than getting combat-specific patches committed.

In other words, turning FlightGear into a "modding platform" isn't difficult at all, it's something that people have been doing for almost two decades meanwhile, and it's the right thing to pursue interests that may not necessarily be well aligned with the current group of key contributors.

Thus, rather than spending weeks, months and even years debating the status quo, you can be proactive and prove people wrong - just like the people did by coming up with a scripted dogfighting system, a scripted weather system, a scriptable 2D drawing API or the whole shuttle project
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11376
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Previous

Return to The FlightGear project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest