Board index FlightGear The FlightGear project

The state of things in Flight Gear

Questions about the FlightGear organisation, website, wiki etc.

The state of things in Flight Gear

Postby vitos » Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:09 pm

Guys, I had made my conclusions. It seems I am leaving.

On my view situation in FG is:

1) Closed upper society have intention to make profit by Flight Gear finally, maybe have some little profit right now.
2) Intention to include someone else in that society is absented in it of course.
3) Plans of future development is existed but in hide, otherwise folks could realize what they are used.
4) Guys who understands that leaving the project. Commonly they get pressed out by intrigues before realization.
5) Complexity of code produced by that path grows in geometrical progression with size of it and that code could not be reorganized and documented. Therefore the far it goes the less possibility to find and eliminate errors, even for group of developers, and less the possibility to include someone else in that group. In time it will come to the dead end if it will be developed by that path further.

I would wish to interpret knowing facts other way, but it's only one way what comes into my mind on results of communications with different members of FG society from novices to Curtis Olson.

You know, when child evolve he chaotically copies actions of adults only until becomes three years old. When goes own will, first own plans, primary inclusion into common social relations and so on. If it's all absented then child is moron in clinical sense who comes in deep troubles while parents goes in even deeper ones. In means of software project own will is definite internal hierarchy, definite common plan, clear and documented internal structure, clear tools of development state and process calculation, and, not last an surely not least, first real profit. It's all gotta come, if not then project going to stop.

Exact time of next FG crisis can be calculated as analogue of three years age crisis

Code: Select all
1997+mean duration of participation in FG*3/0.75


where 3 is age of three and 0.75 is ratio of intrauterine period to one year. If mean participation time is four years then crisis will come two years after now.

On my view future of project as Flight Gear could be open source software simulator what have stable and sufficient for keeping in order income by cheap but certified and scalable closed hardware simulators for small aviation pilots training. Hardware related code could be closed while that hardware could be scalable from handle and pedals to full moving cockpit. So it could take money from guys who wants to pay and be completely free for everybody else. Will Flight Gear become that project or not do not depends of me much. For me path FG goes to that, by hiding real reasons from most of developers to avoid of sharing future profit with them, is disgusting.

I only share my minds about it because I want to make my decision clear to everybody. I surely do not want to press others to my "opinion". No documentation, no help about FG inners, some unfriendly conversations or avoiding of conversation at all, no common plans, no clear structure, no rule by what some patches included or not or some people become real members of society or not... Of course there is a common rule to not describe by evil will something what could be described by incompetence. But for project what existed more than fifteen years still it's hard to find some nice explanations by that rule. And anyway it will come to self stopping if it will go by that unclear path, so it does not matter how to describe it.

I'm pretty know alot about what things man says talks about him at first, and I allow possibility what problem in me really. But if it was that way then I could get some help here when it was needed. There was no help, even no replies in some cases, so it makes me think what problem not in me. If it's not in me then I can not help it.

Tasks with Vostok was not in changing others or of others, not in changes without me. Problem was no one had wanted to explain me how FG and community organized in inners to help me solve FG inners related tasks personally in team. Moreover, that explanations unprovided not for me only but for anyone. It's open source but way it open it can not be developed by people for whom it seems to be open. That's the real problem what I can not solve, and, I suppose, no one outside of FG community can.

So I am leaving. It's not the matter of personal relations. It's matter of absence of possibility to help.
Last edited by vitos on Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:36 pm, edited 10 times in total.
Waste of time: too unprofitable for work, too exhausting for hobby.
User avatar
vitos
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:10 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Callsign: vitos
IRC name: vitos
Version: 3.4
OS: Debian

Re: The state of things in Flight Gear

Postby Groucho » Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:10 pm

_____________________________________
Callsign: D-HARP
Flight locations: TNCM, TKPK, EDNY, LOWI
Aircrafts
Helis: EC130, Bo105, UH-1, R22
Twins/Jets: Aerostar, CRJ-200
User avatar
Groucho
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:28 am
Location: Airborne Lake Constance/Germany
Callsign: D-HARP
Version: GIT
OS: Kubuntu

Re: The state of things in Flight Gear

Postby vitos » Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:10 pm



It seems what You did not get the point here. I am leaving not because it's not the way I want it to be. I am leaving because I foresee some big problems ahead what no one seems to prepare to solve and I do not want to make things for project what could end in next two years making all my efforts pointless.

Of course it can be my fantasy only, and it's even more reasonable to treat it that way because it's my project what is in nogo state now. But I see Vostok as some test of loads which every craft will have soon with whole project growing. For example occasional drops of FG on multiplayer crafts loads and low fps. It's already impossible to fly on KSFO in multiplayer here, not only in Vostok. It already drops to 1fps on transatlantic flight without real reason, not only here and not only in Vostok. And it seems what that problems could not be solved right now. I am sure what with number of crafts and common complication increase problem will only grow.

On my opinion chaotic programming have it's end, and does not matter if the reason is some background will or absence of will at all. In time chaotic made project become so complicated what no one knows how to eliminate some bug what produced by a lots of small problems here and there. Thats what I am talking about.

I am not some maniac prophet, do not search for some popularity or power. Simply know by experience what something what's too hard to evolve today it's something what's too hard to maintain tomorrow.
Last edited by vitos on Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Waste of time: too unprofitable for work, too exhausting for hobby.
User avatar
vitos
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:10 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Callsign: vitos
IRC name: vitos
Version: 3.4
OS: Debian

Re: The state of things in Flight Gear

Postby El Flauta » Wed Jul 27, 2011 11:56 pm

vitos wrote in Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:10 pm:On my opinion chaotic programming have it's end, and does not matter if the reason is some background will or absence of will at all. In time chaotic made project become so complicated what no one knows how to eliminate some bug what produced by a lots of small problems here and there. Thats what I am talking about.

Not the first, not the only one...
http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11646

We choose to leave that conversation, and still working apart, despite we have more and more arguments (and even seeing some people wich undervalue our words repeating our point of view few months after). Good luck Vitos, your work is awesome.
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: 429
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:09 am
Location: SCVM, Chile
Callsign: CC-FLT
Version: 3
OS: Windows 7 SP1

Re: The state of things in Flight Gear

Postby vitos » Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:16 am

El Flauta wrote in Wed Jul 27, 2011 11:56 pm:Not the first, not the only one...
http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11646

We choose to leave that conversation, and still working apart, despite we have more and more arguments (and even seeing some people wich undervalue our words repeating our point of view few months after). Good luck Vitos, your work is awesome.


Well, I simply did not know about that conversation. My idea is easy. If someone can...I can not because I am interested and do not know where to look...please make graph of FG mean issue solving estimated time on base of real facts and prolongate it. I suppose it's gotta be some geometrical progression with estimated solution time exceeding half of year in two years after now or sooner. Then check number of issues growing, it's gotta grow fast too.

So I mean not some unfunny state when it still goes as it had before with same tempo. No, I foresee natural self collapse when any update starts to take a huge times because of lots of emergent issues which makes overall development of project very slow or impossible. Then it as whole becomes really outdated because of that, so new developers stops to get interest in it, and then it all comes to dead state with tens of users who uses it mostly because they had spared some time of their lives on it before.

It's not the aircraft problem, nice scalable craft with very clear inner structure can be made by one man. It's FG core problem.

I may be wrong, it's only my suggestions, so please check it.

Thank You anyway.
Waste of time: too unprofitable for work, too exhausting for hobby.
User avatar
vitos
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:10 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Callsign: vitos
IRC name: vitos
Version: 3.4
OS: Debian

Re: The state of things in Flight Gear

Postby stuart » Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:00 pm

(partial cross-posting from the Dev list)

We don't have any way to measure the time taken to fix a given bug in FlightGear - the issue system isn't used for all bugs, and hasn't been in use long enough to provide historical data.

However, we can measure the amount of development taking place by measuring the number of "commits" (i.e. code changes) to the FlightGear codebases. If vitos theory is correct, then we should see a reduction in the rate of commits over time, as FlightGear becomes less and less manageable, and heads towards the self-collapse he predicts.

I've used "git log --no-notes --date=short" to generate a list of all the commits in simgear, flightgear and fgdata since the project began in 1997 (we have detailed logs of all the changes that have been made).

I've drawn some graphs of
- the number of commits per month,
- 6 month moving averages,
- the number of commits per year.

An OpenOffice spreadsheet of the data and graphs is available here:

http://www.nanjika.co.uk/flightgear/git.ods

The 6 month moving average looks like this:

Image

As you can see, FG development has been quite variable over time (generally a lot of development in the northern hemisphere winter), but core development, as shown by the red and blue lines (FG is made up of the separate simgear and flightgear codebases) has been fairly constant since the start of the project. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back vitos theory that development is in decline and the project is heading towards self-collapse.

It also highlights the massive increase in aircraft over the last couple of years, as shown by the amount of change to fgdata (yellow line).

-Stuart
G-MWLX
User avatar
stuart
Moderator
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:56 am
Location: Edinburgh
Callsign: G-MWLX

Re: The state of things in Flight Gear

Postby kyokoyama » Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:29 pm

(though considering some of the recently departing users' reasons that the forums have less new projects than before, it somewhat makes sense since the amounts of commits now are much lower than back in mid-2008 or late 2010...)
Look for "B-BIRD" "N127KY" or "AVA0004" -that's me.

Despite having over 1700 posts here, I am not even close to being the most skilled guy here... I'm just words and bad drawing, not experience. :P
kyokoyama
 
Posts: 1988
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 2:16 am
Location: Earth
Callsign: B-BIRD, N127KY
Version: 2.12.1
OS: Windows Vista

Re: The state of things in Flight Gear

Postby vitos » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:49 am

stuart wrote in Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:00 pm:(partial cross-posting from the Dev list)

We don't have any way to measure the time taken to fix a given bug in FlightGear - the issue system isn't used for all bugs, and hasn't been in use long enough to provide historical data.

However, we can measure the amount of development taking place by measuring the number of "commits" (i.e. code changes) to the FlightGear codebases. If vitos theory is correct, then we should see a reduction in the rate of commits over time, as FlightGear becomes less and less manageable, and heads towards the self-collapse he predicts.


Thank You for work made and information presented, it's very nice to see it. But rate of commits and mean bug solving time with number of bugs produced by some change is little bit different things. If some novice produces more bugs than before because of outdated inner structure then until some time one novice produces more commits, so number of novices is lowering while number of commits stays same. Then after some bifurcation time one novice produces so big troubles what number of commits starts lowering, but it comes nearly to collapse what is comparatively far on my opinion.

I had started to talk about that not because collapse is right behind next turn, I had started to talk about it because, I suppose, now is time to start bring Flight Gear in order to avoid it in future. You know, as deaths of Korolyev, Komarov, and Gagarin had showed what something wrong about progress in USSR twenty years before it had started to collapse really, in times when it had seemed to be fast progress empire for most of planet residents. Message was not received in case of USSR, maybe it will be received here.

I have no time to count it on FG society model, but I have real live data on somehow similar society. It's by http://www.demographia.ru site, look:

Image

See, estimated life duration had stayed same, and then, You know, was social collapse without visible reason. I have that experience understood, You seems to be not. Real external growing leads to internal structure improvement, or growing stops. Does not matter what numbers says, it's fact of life what You can see on Your own life experience. FG is part of life and could nod avoid it.

I would recommend to make it rule to use bug tracking system with solving times accounting possibilities to check it out, and I hope I am not right about collapse at least in meaning of time because if it in two years really then it will be too close when it will be confirmed by that system.

You can repost it to devel list if You want. I suppose I had said enough for smart man already so I see no reason to do it.
Last edited by vitos on Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:14 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Waste of time: too unprofitable for work, too exhausting for hobby.
User avatar
vitos
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:10 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Callsign: vitos
IRC name: vitos
Version: 3.4
OS: Debian

Re: The state of things in Flight Gear

Postby Thorsten » Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:11 am

See, estimated life duration had stayed same, and then, You know, was social collapse without visible reason. I have that experience understood, You seems to be not.


It seems you're not appreciating a fact which makes that comparison very misleading: Live expectancy is the relevant number, the amount of commits is a time derivative of the relevant number 'size of the Flightgear project', so what you should compare is the integral of the number of commits - which would be steeply rising.

What Stuart's curve tells you is that Flightgear and Simgear grow but at constant rather than accelerated pace, whereas FGData does grow at accelerated pace (albeit with large fluctuations). If what you claimed were true and growth would slow down because of increased time to deal with each bug, you'd see a decrease of the time derivative, rather than a constant - which is not there.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10226
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: The state of things in Flight Gear

Postby vitos » Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:48 am

Thorsten wrote in Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:11 am:It seems you're not appreciating a fact which makes that comparison very misleading: Live expectancy is the relevant number, the amount of commits is a time derivative of the relevant number 'size of the Flightgear project', so what you should compare is the integral of the number of commits - which would be steeply rising.

What Stuart's curve tells you is that Flightgear and Simgear grow but at constant rather than accelerated pace, whereas FGData does grow at accelerated pace (albeit with large fluctuations). If what you claimed were true and growth would slow down because of increased time to deal with each bug, you'd see a decrease of the time derivative, rather than a constant - which is not there.


You see no difference between commit purpose of what is some novice, commit purpose of what is fixing a bug what was made by previous commit purpose of what was some novice, and commit purpose of what is copying data from one place to another. Improvement is only occurs with commits what adds some novices so number of commits itself do not tells no thing.

For example fast growing of fgdata. We all know, that growing occurs because of a lot of halfmaded crafts mostly, and many of it is simply copies of other FG crafts with other 3d and yasim models with same inners in all other meanings. It's not improvement of project, it's growing of its data size. Somehow it makes more problems only because it's harder to user to find really good craft.

Same with FG itself. There is same number of commits, but only current novices I can remember is Your weather system, very questionable because it's not improvement of previous weather system but other system what's made on external nasal instead of internal c, and Zans atmosphere scattering what still have a lot of troubles.

Simply count number of real improvements changing, You may do it by newsletter.
Waste of time: too unprofitable for work, too exhausting for hobby.
User avatar
vitos
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:10 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Callsign: vitos
IRC name: vitos
Version: 3.4
OS: Debian

Re: The state of things in Flight Gear

Postby Thorsten » Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:29 am

You see no difference between commit purpose of what is some novice, commit purpose of what is fixing a bug what was made by previous commit purpose of what was some novice, and commit purpose of what is copying data from one place to another. Improvement is only occurs with commits what adds some novices so number of commits itself do not tells no thing.


I do see a difference, but for lack of data and for lack of any indication to the contrary, I assume that the ratio is a constant over time - prove me wrong.

For example fast growing of fgdata. We all know, that growing occurs because of a lot of halfmaded crafts mostly, and many of it is simply copies of other FG crafts with other 3d and yasim models with same inners in all other meanings.


No, in fact we all don't know that - my impression is that the submission rate ratio of half-finished aircraft to high-quality aircraft is not changed over time. What I don't see is that previously only high-quality aircraft were submitted and in recent years half-finished aircraft with copied FDMs took over. In fact, I see more and more high-quality aircraft appearing.

Same with FG itself. There is same number of commits, but only current novices I can remember is Your weather system, very questionable because it's not improvement of previous weather system but other system what's made on external nasal instead of internal c, and Zans atmosphere scattering what still have a lot of troubles.


Both shaders and my weather system are not commits to 'FG itself' (I suppose you mean the core) but to FGData like all the aircraft. I don't know why that would be 'questionable' - so I'd ask why you get to define what a meaningful commit is, rather than someone else.

As for the core, you don't get to commit a patch without review if you are a novice, so the situation that a lot of time is wasted with bugfixing commits by a novice can't really occur. Strange you didn't know that...

Simply count number of real improvements changing, You may do it by newsletter.


Why gets to define what a real improvement is? You? Me? Torsten? Popular vote? The core developers?

The newsletter isn't even a good measure of my own development which I know really well - if I have time to write something, then I do, if not then I don't. I fail to see why it would be a better measure for other people's development.

You know, you're making this a moving target. You asked for the facts, Stuart gave them to you, they don't show a decline. Next you claimed that even a constant is bad. Now you ask for some other measure - because you know the decline must be there, so Stuarts facts must be wrong. Ask yourself - if Stuart's curves would have pointed down - would you have accepted them as valid evidence for your theory? If the newsletter parse doesn't show a decline, you'll come up with some other explanation why it's not the right quantity to look at. If you ask long enough, you certainly will eventually find a curve which has a downward trend - then you'll claim success and be happy to have proven your theory. But all this is is cognitive bias in action.

You're not interested what the facts tell any more - you're interested in finding the facts which confirm your view, and you are willing to dismiss all evidence to the contrary. Nothing I or anyone else could say can convince you - because you already know. So - I'll shut up.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10226
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: The state of things in Flight Gear

Postby vitos » Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:49 am

Thorsten wrote in Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:29 am:I do see a difference, but for lack of data and for lack of any indication to the contrary, I assume that the ratio is a constant over time - prove me wrong.


Man, I do not need to prove something, I am leaving. I already made my conclusions and talk to You only to give You some clues. You may think about what I had said or do not do it. That problem is up to You, not to me.

Thorsten wrote in Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:29 am:No, in fact we all don't know that - my impression is that the submission rate ratio of half-finished aircraft to high-quality aircraft is not changed over time. What I don't see is that previously only high-quality aircraft were submitted and in recent years half-finished aircraft with copied FDMs took over. In fact, I see more and more high-quality aircraft appearing.


Well, it's all right then. Happy to hear it.

Thorsten wrote in Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:29 am:Both shaders and my weather system are not commits to 'FG itself' (I suppose you mean the core) but to FGData like all the aircraft. I don't know why that would be 'questionable' - so I'd ask why you get to define what a meaningful commit is, rather than someone else.


Really meaningful commit is commit what brings something new everybody see. Does not matter where it goes, in fgdata or fg itself. Meaningful commit is commit what brings something new everybody could see, by turning some option on or starting some craft, or so. The easier to turn it on the more it meaningful. You can turn on Your system right in FG while to start Vostok You need to restart FG. So Your weather system is more meaningful for FG currently because it's easier to turn it on to user, even if it had take much less efforts than Vostok. If there is nothing new in some craft or FG core "innovation" then it's not meaningful commonly at all, it could be meaningful only for someone who see it first time.

Shader and weather system, and my crafts, all bring something new in FG but off by default. So it's meaningful but not much really. Some new ground textures whats on by default, or some updates for default Cessna could be much more meaningful to project. BTW there gotta be real resistance from others if You'll try to do so. Not only I had heard some stories about it, I know why it occurs. People do not like real innovators mostly because real innovations is real power while most of people equals power to authority and do not want to give authority up even if it leads them and everybody else to collapse.

Questionable everything what's increase number of essences without real visible reason. For example my Vostok is questionable until You see no difference between closed source Orbiter and open source FG, not see difference between piloted rocked and automated rocket. MiG is questionable until You do not see how gears breaks whats impossible in other crafts in FG currently and until You do not know what I had improved already existed craft instead of making new one. Some "new" craft or "innovation" without something really new in it is not only questionable, it's not needed on my opinion. It can be some detail or so, but if it's absented or can not be tested then better make something for already existed crafts. Same with FG inners itself.

Thorsten wrote in Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:29 am:As for the core, you don't get to commit a patch without review if you are a novice, so the situation that a lot of time is wasted with bugfixing commits by a novice can't really occur. Strange you didn't know that...


Not by novice guy, but something what is novice for FG. Novelty I mean.

Thorsten wrote in Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:29 am:Why gets to define what a real improvement is? You? Me? Torsten? Popular vote? The core developers?


Me, because I have common sense what You and others seems to have not. Real improvement is novelty what everyone, or mostly everyone, see or feel. Improvement is novelty what everyone could feel. Other could be growing but not improvement.

Thorsten wrote in Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:29 am:The newsletter isn't even a good measure of my own development which I know really well - if I have time to write something, then I do, if not then I don't. I fail to see why it would be a better measure for other people's development.


Maybe because it, and that forum, and development list talks, is only tools You could have now. And because if something really new occurs people still talks about it. Newsletter could be wrong source if Your system was not in it. It was, so I do not see the reason why You are disagree.

Thorsten wrote in Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:29 am:You know, you're making this a moving target. You asked for the facts, Stuart gave them to you, they don't show a decline. Next you claimed that even a constant is bad. Now you ask for some other measure - because you know the decline must be there, so Stuarts facts must be wrong. Ask yourself - if Stuart's curves would have pointed down - would you have accepted them as valid evidence for your theory? If the newsletter parse doesn't show a decline, you'll come up with some other explanation why it's not the right quantity to look at. If you ask long enough, you certainly will eventually find a curve which has a downward trend - then you'll claim success and be happy to have proven your theory. But all this is is cognitive bias in action.


Well, if You try to find reasons of what I say in me personally then I for sure can do same about You. I am professional psychologist, remember? You talk it all to hold me because it could be fun to You to have new craft by me. New by Your point of view. Thats Your real reason boy.

But I tell You, there is no possibility to make really new craft in FG right now. It all stops because of inner FG structure development problems. If You make craft fly higher You see weird view until FG drops on some unreasonable limit. If You make craft fly longer You have fps drop because of memory leaks. If You make craft fly further You have fps drop by what I dunno. If You make craft fly faster You see holes because of terrain loading lag and then You have fps zero drop. If You make craft more maneurable You see human body reaction limit. And You have FG dropouts in multiplayer because of other models loading, so flying further or longer leads only to big confusion on some occasional finish. And You can not improve FG inners to solve it all because no one wants You to learn how to do so even if such ignorance could mean common end.

I had tested it all by Vostok. New things what could be made in common craft I had developed in MiG.There is nothing new I could made, moreover, nobody can in that matter right now until FG structure change.

I know by experience what life is improvement, not growing. Something what can not be improved starts to die therefore and it's not reasonable to count how fast. Reasonable is to change, to change Yourself, to make something new or make it all simpler for someone who could do it. Everything else is lie.

Thorsten wrote in Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:29 am:You're not interested what the facts tell any more - you're interested in finding the facts which confirm your view, and you are willing to dismiss all evidence to the contrary. Nothing I or anyone else could say can convince you - because you already know. So - I'll shut up.


Look, if Your system was denied You could tell the same as I, but could not tell much because You do not have much experience. Try to imagine Yourself on my place, not as offended guy but as someone who had understood it all.
Waste of time: too unprofitable for work, too exhausting for hobby.
User avatar
vitos
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:10 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Callsign: vitos
IRC name: vitos
Version: 3.4
OS: Debian

Re: The state of things in Flight Gear

Postby kyokoyama » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:04 pm

Before I start, Vitos, let's get the obvious clear -I've no intentions of insulting you or your beliefs; I'm simply trying to argue against them.
I respect your work for the MiG-15 and Vostok 1, and thank you for those contributions -I love them too (aside for never understanding how to work that rocket... but that's a different story)

Anywho, here're my thoughts on what you said:

vitos wrote in Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:49 am:Man, I do not need to prove something, I am leaving. I already made my conclusions and talk to You only to give You some clues. You may think about what I had said or do not do it. That problem is up to You, not to me.

Doesn't matter. Burden of proof's up on you.

vitos wrote in Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:49 am:People do not like real innovators mostly because real innovations is real power while most of people equals power to authority and do not want to give authority up even if it leads them and everybody else to collapse.

My apologies for butting in, Vitos, but ...this would be true in something like politics; however, this is an open-source community.
The only place there is a (theoretically) false sense of authority in this community is between the core developers and forum users, and between FG users and the forum/site operators and moderators (Gijs, Stuart, Curt etc.). -and I don't see too much of that.
Especially for your example, it's not really a problem of people not wanting to see real change, but it could also be other issues; I understand Jason (SkyWlf77) said that this may be an issue of his FOSS Media Project not working out, but I think it could equally have been caused by other problems, such as the lack of interest or advertisement in his project, or simply that the community did not want it -if it's an issue of want, rather than that heirarchy issue that you're mentioning, Vitos, then there's nothing that can be done, am I wrong? It's a problem of choice, not some personal desire or hidden agenda... It can't be helped.

vitos wrote in Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:49 am:Some "new" craft or "innovation" without something really new in it is not only questionable, it's not needed on my opinion. It can be some detail or so, but if it's absented or can not be tested then better make something for already existed crafts. Same with FG inners itself.

So you're just putting value and importance of a project on new, major innovations, and ignoring other development? I'd like to strongly disagree... Development's development, no matter how minor it is... You can't make it insignificant just because it's not some whole new, revolutionary way to cheat the JSBsim or YAsim system to create an FDM that's half the filesize of current FDMs. Am I wrong?
Look for "B-BIRD" "N127KY" or "AVA0004" -that's me.

Despite having over 1700 posts here, I am not even close to being the most skilled guy here... I'm just words and bad drawing, not experience. :P
kyokoyama
 
Posts: 1988
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 2:16 am
Location: Earth
Callsign: B-BIRD, N127KY
Version: 2.12.1
OS: Windows Vista

Re: The state of things in Flight Gear

Postby vitos » Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:34 pm

kyokoyama wrote in Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:04 pm:Doesn't matter. Burden of proof's up on you.


There is no fact based tool what could help make definite proof easily and You know it. So I may say "Previously we had great innovations as moving from plib to osg, now we can not get our shadows and light sources still" or something as that, You may bring some other subjective point, it's going to nowhere. I already had bring some proofs, for me that's enough. Now it's up to You to get it or not.

kyokoyama wrote in Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:04 pm:My apologies for butting in, Vitos, but ...this would be true in something like politics; however, this is an open-source community.


Well... Please look on that topic for example http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9647 . It's not so common story in craft development because "one man per craft" is normal situation in it, but much more common story in core development as I had heard. You simply do not aware of it.

kyokoyama wrote in Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:04 pm:It's a problem of choice, not some personal desire or hidden agenda... It can't be helped.


May be You are right in it but I suppose it's other way. People easily do something because of egocentric reasons but explain it as driven by higher matters. I am believe what project without documentation and clear inner structure had made without thinking of someone else who could improve it further simply. But when there is no developer who could want to help You to learn it then I am sure what no one wants You in, and it's no matter of Your choice no way.

kyokoyama wrote in Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:04 pm:So you're just putting value and importance of a project on new, major innovations, and ignoring other development?


I do not ignoring over development. I hope You had misinterpreted my words unintentionally. I had said what that over development without real innovations, first of all without relations clearing and progress, leads to overbloating, then stagnation and then collapse. I am sure about it, I know what it's true by a lot of different stories. Please do not think what FG is first on that path.

kyokoyama wrote in Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:04 pm:You can't make it insignificant just because it's not some whole new, revolutionary way to cheat the JSBsim or YAsim system to create an FDM that's half the filesize of current FDMs. Am I wrong?


I suppose yes. At first, I do not make significance, I only tell if something significant really or not. Secondly, there is no way to make great FDM by cheating some FDM system. You can make better system what will need less data to provide better results but can not get by cheat results better than results without cheating. If You'll look on FDM files size then You'll see what size of MiG and Vostok FDM files is some of greatest if not simply greatest in FG.

To make computer simulate reality better You need to tell to it more about reality. It can be done by FDM system or FDM file but You'v got to tell more anyway. If You cheat then You only tell about cheating and then You could be nice source for cheater simulator but nothing more.

If You mean some personal point then I simply had made best what I could with things and people what life had gave to me. To do more in that situation would be not the best what I could, so I am leaving.

Anyway, I already told You what is significant really, what is simply significant, and what it significant only personally. Do not see the reason... But wait.

Look.

Image

Know why them happy?

On left is Yury Alexeevitch Gagarin. His real, in meanings of reality show, importance was titanic. Hi simply was absolutely healthy guy who did know how to smile. Do not laugh, it's very hard to become absolutely healthy guy and even more harder to not waste clearness of smile on some unclear relations. He could charm anyone, from enemy to queen. With that art he could be anyone, from movie star to president, but he did chose space flight and he was right. He become known not for year, for all mankind.

On right is Sergey Pavlovitch Korolyev. His true importance was titanic. He was not known for most of people on planet, but for ones who did know him he was absolute leader. He did know how to unite people and things, with that skill he could be ruler of whole planet. But he did chose space flight and he was right. He become known not for ages, for whole mankind.

Then look on those guys:

Image

And those girls:

Image

I can not send all that photos, there is a lot of, You personally could find it if You want. Know why them happy? Because most of them simply had lived their lives but suddenly become ones who can tell: "I did seen him!", "I did a bit for that!", "It was in my time!", and, BTW, "What did You done, what happened in Your time what You are proud of?".

Now look on that guy:

Image

It's Nikita Sereevitch Khrushchev on phone. Know why he happy? Because he had power and could devastate all planet and waste all lives, not only lives of guys on photo, Your and my lives too, but instead made them, and partially me, proud of our life.

I do not send photos of wives and kids. It's personal relations, so You can find them personally.

You may not tell me. I am surely know what's important and how. And of course in simulator it can be bit other way, but, You know...It's bit other way only in simulator.

You may reread what I had said, if so then try to read it not as egocentrically driven but as pointed to common good. It's already true because I am already go and could not get any personal profit from all of that anyway.

That's what about real life. Now some final notes about Flight Gear state.

Real Vostok had inspired whole mankind. If everything in FG was clear then fact what someone had made rocket and spacecraft and orbital flight around Earth would inspire some changes here as it was in real life. Just because someone had made something first time in FG, because it is absented in other simulators. If all in FG was fair then intension to make that changes would be here. Even in case of total mess and real absence of common plan that intention would be here individually on all levels. But here is not so much inspiration, and the close to core developers the less that inspiration is presented. Then core developers have plan what does not include Vostok and any other spacecraft.

If some sort of humane was here then even if Vostok was absented in plan some steps to meet it would be presented, just because of understanding what human had spend a lot of time and hard work, maybe unreasonable, but it's important to him and can be important to someone else. Would it take so much work to make FG show some blue circle with clouds without slowing down? For specialist it's one working day, trifle. But there is no such steps. Then that plan is exploitation plan based on "You do it all alone and then we will use it if it'll go well with our plan" principle.

Even if it was inhuman, there must be some common sense here. Really serious project always can bring serious profit. Even if developer makes something useless for common plan on itself then result is related to project as whole and some parts can be useful for common business. If project is serious then parts is serious. In reality it occurs exactly that way, manned flight to the Moon was not brought much profit on itself still, but only teflon as particular result had compensated Moon program tens of times. "Vostok" makes orbital flight from liftoff to landing but third or so of project is realized. Anyway "Vostok"s thrust vector control semiautomatic system is very meaningful thing already since similar systems is used in most of modern fighters what is too sensitive without it. Stages change system would be used for full grown pilot ejection and safe chute landing simulation, it could add much popularity to project since it not presented in other comparable simulators. If "Vostok" could be continued there could be more commonly useful things. But that common sense is not presented here in FG.

Plan maybe was to draw me and guys as me in core development because it's in common interests. But when it had went out what I more possibly will go away than will go in deeps alone then someone could help me really. Just because it's in common interests. That is better to make two additional steps on meeting someone than lose him. But in case of "You do it alone, we will use results" it's unreasonable to await such steps.

And even if all of that was not presented commonly, for example because of comparable project young age, there could be at least one reasonable man between core developers to understand that individually and make some steps in accordance. But there was no real reaction, only some conversations.

Then there is exact plan presented, implying exploitation of man, predatory bare and totally dull, and that plan is realized without any glance of adequacy.

It all could be forgiven and maybe even forgotten in case of one small step in direction of meeting, or at least some small phrase as "we wish, but we can not". But here is even no single humane word. It's inhumane at all.

People who have virtual self affirmation as main purpose simply can not make something real because real is common and to make it means to make something what someone else needs and tells too therefore.

That is real deal there, it possible to trick man but impossible to trick life itself.
Waste of time: too unprofitable for work, too exhausting for hobby.
User avatar
vitos
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:10 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Callsign: vitos
IRC name: vitos
Version: 3.4
OS: Debian

Re: The state of things in Flight Gear

Postby Hooray » Sat Aug 27, 2011 5:19 pm

vitos wrote in Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:10 pm:It seems what You did not get the point here. I am leaving not because it's not the way I want it to be. I am leaving because I foresee some big problems ahead what no one seems to prepare to solve and I do not want to make things for project what could end in next two years making all my efforts pointless.


Umm, seriously: from what I can see, FlightGear has never been in a better shape than it is in right now.

In fact, admittely FlightGear -as a software project- has actually been in a much worse shape for many years (no forums, no wiki, no bug tracker, no git repository, no build server, no formal release procedures etc)- still it somehow managed to stay around for over 10 years, despite all its deficiencies...
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: 11292
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Next

Return to The FlightGear project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest