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 Hooray » Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:22 pm

I think there is only so much that we can expect people to put up with, which also brings us back to some fgms (MP) maintainers "banning" some users due to behavior they don't want to tolerate on their "donated" hardware/resources.

At the end of the day, it may be better to separate things sufficiently - i.e. use separate MP servers, and distribute combat-specific elements using the new package mananger/catalog system, so that people can use such elements on an "opt-in" basis, while others will never be affected by it.

A separately maintained "fork" including combat-specific elements may be the best option forward to ensure that we don't see certain debates over and over again.

Based on my understanding, it would be possibly to identify a handful changes/additions to allow "MODs" to be developed in the form of "overlays", i.e. custom addons that could be installed and which would be overlaid on top of $FG_ROOT/$FG_SCENERY/$FG_ADDON, i.e. that would never modify any of those directly, but which would be treated with priority to load certain resources (aircraft, textures, scripts, sounds) - that way, an addon (like bombable) could be developed/maintained (and installed) separately, without necessarily having to involve patches to the stock FG installation.

From a technical standpoint I will continue to be interested in combat related functionality, but from a community standpoint it is understandable that more and more contributors are opposed to the idea given how some people are dealing with such functionality.

And personally, I really don't want to see videos of such "recreations" show up on youtube, causing this degree of distraction and irritation ...

I do realize however that what seems acceptable is different for people, i.e. depending on their backgrounds - i.e. the multiplayer event recreating the Hiroshima bombings were causing quite some irritation here, while WW2 related multiplayer events targeting Nazi Germany didn't cause any debates at all.

Technically, there's no difference between the FlightGear/Multiplayer or scenery and aircraft features used, so it's primarily a societal issue, i.e. about what we consider acceptable, and things we don't want to tolerate.
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: 12707
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:40 am
Pronouns: THOU

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Thorsten » Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:23 pm

Again - from where I stand, there was a workable mode defined - with the boundary conditions laid out. No weapons simulation in FG itself, but all the hooks to support an optional addon. Everyone could have gotten what (s)he wanted out of that.

Some people felt that's not enough and had to go push for more. Okay - but that proves that boundaries are not going to be respected. Which, again - only as far as my personal support, subsystems, influence etc. is concerned - implies that the deal is off.

What I propose is we lay down a set of principles, boundaries you may say.


What should let me believe that next time everything will be better? Why should die-hard war re-enactment fans feel bound by your word?
Thorsten
 
Posts: 12490
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:33 am

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Hooray » Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:28 pm

Sorry to say this, but Thorsten, Torsten, others and me do not live forever. Eventually, a new generation will take over the development of FlightGear. We may be able to stop the development of combat capabilities this semicentennial, but what's to stop the next generation?


Right, but "recently", the opposite happened: from being supportive about combat elements, but not actively working towards them, we have now arrived at a situation where most active contributors are no longer supportive at all.
Which is one of the prime examples for multiplayer, and the people using it (end-users), putting harm to the project - despite others not even using it, but wanting to create/extend certain features (contributors).

Also, so what if there is no military simulation. People can still crash into others, or worse, into buildings. Twin buildings if you know what I mean. Should we stop development of urban scenery too?


In fact, that, too, happened - i.e. the whole 9/11 WTC event - and people went as far debating that on the devel list: http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=fl ... tc&x=0&y=0
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: 12707
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:40 am
Pronouns: THOU

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Foxtrot15 » Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:57 pm

Why should die-hard war re-enactment fans feel bound by your word?

Haha, you make a very persuasive person. Yup, my idea's kinda redundant, problem is with people able to reach the hooks. Which brings me to Hooray's idea of MP Moderators, good idea, but there'll definitely be debate on who to ban. :x

I still need clarification for FGPromo: will future versions of FG incorporate combat capable aircraft (not with damage though, just the launch).
I have two scenes, one where an F-15 launches a missile and one where the A-10 fires its gun. Will future FG not allow both?

I'm just brainstorming, wonder how FSX or X-plane deals with this problem....I do know that X-plane supports missiles but how it deals with bombs and hit i'm not sure. It also uses addons for combat functionality much like the bombable. Perhaps they have a more efficient way of dealing with this, what's more they are a commercial product, so people ruining their name will have much bigger impact. How they control this is definitely worth looking into.

Also, I have to say that I do enjoy the simulation of being a fighter pilot (now my dream, as I have less-than-perfect eyesight), so taking away combat is kinda sad for me. We do need a way to deny the "bad guys" opportunities to make insensitive actions, without hurting the good guys who want to have some fun. In fact, FG is the only free, OS X-capable simulation platform that supports air combat. Which is why taking it away will be a blow to me.
Foxtrot15
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:01 am
Location: Singapore
Callsign: Ice-99
Version: 2016.1.0
OS: OS X

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Hooray » Fri Jan 01, 2016 5:24 pm

My comments were not about the "idea" of having "MP moderators", but about the practice of people, donating their time and resources to provide a MP server, to decide for themselves if they want to put up with certain behavior/people - we did get to see tons of "censorship" allegations in response to such contributors "banning" people from using their infrastructure/resources.

Other contributors, like vitos, explicitly disallow their work to be used for purposes other than their vision, which is no longer compatible with the GPL.

Military aircraft will continue to be part of FlightGear/fgaddon, regardless of the whole "combat" discussion.

The problem for proprietary products like xplane/fsx is a completely different one, because there you have paying customers who pay for the expertise/resources of those developing the software - with FlightGear, you gotta ensure that those developing the software are sufficiently motivated to do, i.e. not discouraged by random end-users abusing the software for questionable purposes, such as re-creating 9/11 or WW2/Hiroshima bombings on multiplayer.

Nobody is taking away optional "addons" like bombable though - there's just an increasing tendency among contributors to realize that the pain/gain ratio just isn't worth it, i.e. in terms of active support/endorsement - a few years ago, the FlightGear project actively encouraged people get involved and help with the development of these features, these days the situation is a different one, and end-users abusing the multiplayer infrastructure to recreate events where thousands of people died, certainly contributed to that. Ironically, without realizing that - had they used private MP infrastructure (servers) and not promoted such recreations on the forum, we would very likely be in a very different situation - but so far, this has backfired at related efforts, including bombable.


What is likely going to happen over time is that the package manager/catalog system is going to allow aircraft ,and addons, to deployed in a decentralized fashion, so that addons like bombable (or other combat related functionality) may not become a native part of FlightGear, but an optional plugin, that people can "download & install" by using something like the Integrated Qt5 launcher, i.e. to download different aircraft/weapons, scenery and AI bots - without any of this having to be supported by the remaining number of core developers or other fgdata contributors.

The whole fgaddon, but also fgmembers, development is making that a very likely outcome should people continue to be interested in combat functionality - especially in conjunction with plans to allow the simulator to be extended via HLA, and possibly Python - because those will be extension mechanisms that allow the simulator to be extended without having to be intimately familiar with FlightGear internals - and in fact, this may help resusciate efforts like T4T, because niche languages like Nasal provide for a certain barrier to entry, especially when compared to more standard solutions like HLA and Python.

So at the end of the day is all comes down to how serious people are about combat support in FlightGear - creating an external "hangar" is already possible, and the number of required changes to allow FlightGear to be customized in the form of "mods" is fairly low, i.e. we are talking about 5-10 self-contained changes to allow fgdata/fgaircraft and fgscenery to be treated as directories with support for "overlays", where certain resources may be provided by an external directory, possibly stored in $FG_HOME

This is already how $FG_SCENERY treatment works, but also a number of other resources are looked up using a priority scheme, i.e. where custom directories/locations take precedence over $FG_ROOT resources - that would make Bombable etc possible, without requiring invasive changes, and without requiring much in terms of ongoing maintenance.

Then again, if you are serious about combat simulation and mainly interested in using/playing it, there are certainly much better options available than FlightGear - FlightGear is likely only of interest to those who want to help create/shape and extend a combat simulator, i.e. to work around closed-source solutions (e.g. because they were discontinued).

Until recently, that also applied to spaceflight in FlightGear - Thorsten and his team of earthview/spaceshuttle enthusiasts are proving that tons of stuff can be accomplished with a little dedication, even without dedicated support from any core developers at all, i.e. in the form of patches.

So I stand by Thorsten's earlier assertion, that there really isn't much missing to use FlightGear as platform for combat simulation, and that useful changes could be implemented in a fashion so that they would be useful regardless of the combat scenario, it just seems that those interested in combat are most unlikely to find compromises and make concessions - which compared to the spaceflight crowd, seems to be the main reason why they are not making all that much progress in comparison - which isn't uncommon, just look at the original vostok debate.

If there's a group of contributors really interested in using FlightGear as a platform for developing combat functionality, I would suggest to start a separate thread, so that we can work out what is missing in terms of generic building blocks, that would not be combat-specific, to ensure that combat functionality can be developed by those wanting it, without affecting FlightGear as a whole.

Like I said, I can think of 10-15 self-contained lower-level changes to allow certain features to be enabled, customized and disabled, and that should suffice to allow things like Bombable to be developed, without endorsement by any core developers.

At the same time, this would also ensure that people would not need to fork FlightGear to develop/maintain combat support in FlightGear.

A few years ago, I have offered the same advice to Bomber and his T4T team, and I have come to realize that it would have been better not to waste my time talking in private to those folks, but instead create a corresponding wiki article for those interested.
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: 12707
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:40 am
Pronouns: THOU

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Thorsten » Fri Jan 01, 2016 6:44 pm

I still need clarification for FGPromo: will future versions of FG incorporate combat capable aircraft (not with damage though, just the launch).
I have two scenes, one where an F-15 launches a missile and one where the A-10 fires its gun. Will future FG not allow both?


You're vastly overestimating the consequences of a private decision of mine. Even if I wanted, I could not make existing aircraft and their capabilities go away. I can't tell you what future FG versions will or will not incorporate. Historically FG had aircraft with such capabilities, for better or worse, and if I were to make a guess, they will continue to exist in the future.

Translation - feel free to show what's on the repository :-)
Thorsten
 
Posts: 12490
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:33 am

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby wlbragg » Fri Jan 01, 2016 7:53 pm

Some people felt that's not enough and had to go push for more.

As long as the controlling interests maintain the status quo, there is no need to let people that "push for more" have any influence in allowing FG to position itself in the most versatile state we can. What we need is a rich add-on capable configuration that pretty much allows for anything one would want to do with "Gear for Flying"!
Which is what we currently have, in my opinion.

The core can still remain neutral as it currently is.

Abuser, (or others with different opinions), are always going to be out there.

Nothing makes my heart and mind sink lower than when I hear anyone want to limit freedom and versatility because of either a bad actor or a different opinion.

It literally makes me sick when I hear anyone reach a mindset that closing off or shutting down a potential good thing because it can be used as a bad thing.

If we eliminate every possible distasteful or inappropriate possibility of action, there will be nothing left, not only in FG but in the world around us.

Point being, "I think we should scrap FlightGear completely because someone can ram any aircraft into a building".
Kansas and Ohio/Midwest scenery development.
KEQA, 3AU, KRCP Airport Layout
Intel i7/GeForce RTX 2070/Max-Q
User avatar
wlbragg
 
Posts: 7588
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:31 am
Location: Kansas (Tornado Alley), USA
Callsign: WC2020
Version: next
OS: Win10/Linux/RTX 2070

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Hooray » Fri Jan 01, 2016 8:36 pm

Subject: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)
wlbragg wrote:I think a lot of people forget that you don't need permission to do whatever you want to do with FG. I think that "permission" sometimes gets confused with getting others to join your vision of what you think FG should be or include. If enough people want it to include a combat aspect then they should do just that


wlbragg wrote in Fri Jan 01, 2016 7:53 pm:[...]allowing FG to position itself in the most versatile state we can. What we need is a rich add-on capable configuration that pretty much allows for anything one would want to do with "Gear for Flying"!

Which is what we currently have, in my opinion.

The core can still remain neutral as it currently is.

Abuser, (or others with different opinions), are always going to be out there.

Nothing makes my heart and mind sink lower than when I hear anyone want to limit freedom and versatility because of either a bad actor or a different opinion.


I completely agree with that, i.e. things like XML, the property tree, FDM, autopilot, route manager, Nasal, effects, shaders, Canvas etc are not the slightest bit specific to any particular form of "flight simulation".

And this is exactly why things like Advanced Weather, ALS, Earthview and the spaceshuttle (but also Bombable) have become possible without anybody planning for them to be implemented using those building blocks, and without core developers necessarily having to be supportive, or even just aware, of such fgdata efforts.

So while I have no particular need/use for combat elements myself (or even just for spaceflight) in FlightGear, I do think that it is a valid use-case that should be supported (i.e. not excluded), and that the underlying architecture in FlightGear would benefit from supporting such use-cases, even without any particular manifestation of combat-specific building blocks at the SG/FG core level, i.e. building blocks that are sufficiently generic in nature to allow people to implement their ideas - just like the FDM engine or autopilot system are not specific to single-engine piston planes or airliners.

If faced with the two possibilities, i.e. of having a "CombatGear" fork or extending FlightGear in a generic fashion to allow combat elements/addons to be developed as part of FlighGear, I would actively encourage -and support- doing the latter.

If any core developers should still oppose the addition of such generic, framework-level, functionality to FlightGear, without it being combat-specific, I would help the corresponding people to work out the modifications necessary to turn FlightGear into a "moddable" platform, and if necessary, also help them fork FlightGear.
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: 12707
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:40 am
Pronouns: THOU

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby wlbragg » Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:22 pm

Yes, rich "moddable" platform was the actual term I was looking for.

And just to clarify, when I said "It literally makes me sick", I mean that in a deep down soulful kind of way, not as in "of the person or persons of those opinions". I feel like I loose something, forever taken away from me, (whether I would ever use it or not), all because of an others opposing ideas or actions which might be right or wrong.
Kansas and Ohio/Midwest scenery development.
KEQA, 3AU, KRCP Airport Layout
Intel i7/GeForce RTX 2070/Max-Q
User avatar
wlbragg
 
Posts: 7588
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:31 am
Location: Kansas (Tornado Alley), USA
Callsign: WC2020
Version: next
OS: Win10/Linux/RTX 2070

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Hooray » Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:50 pm

Given how long-standing the whole Combat debate has been, a fork would not necessarily be the worst thing to happen.
But like you say, it would make more sense to look at what needs to be done on the FlightGear side to allow such "mods" to be developed independently, without requiring much in terms of core changes/support or even just endorsement.
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: 12707
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:40 am
Pronouns: THOU

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby wkitty42 » Sat Jan 02, 2016 2:39 am

apparently there's not that much to be done core-side and especially if what's currently being done is all done in NASAL (which i never heard of until i found flightgear about a year ago)... plus the request on the dev list was to add it to fgdata or fgaddon... i don't recall which... but either way, is that really to be considered as some sort of infestation of the core of military tactics capabilities??

personally speaking, i don't care one way or the other... i see both sides... as i don't do MP i can see where this might be fun/challenging from an AI standpoint where i'm flying in a military scenario where AI craft are my opponents... whether that's defending london from buzz bombs or attacking japan or even dealing with the african battles in WWwhatever... whatever the case, i do always remember that this software is a SIMULATION and not a game as others are (confusedly) calling it... there is a distinct difference between a game and a simulator... so where is the line crossed from being a simulator to being a game?? seems to me that in games you respawn automatically... that's at least one major point...

i vote that we keep flightgear a simulator... even if that means going so far as to simulate historical battles which are already know... allowing a little bit of divergence from the original battle details would be a good thing... especially if the AI can learn and attempt to defend from other tactics that may not have been used in the original battles...

my 2 centavos, FWTW...
"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: 9147
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:46 pm
Location: central NC, USA
Callsign: wk42
Version: git next
OS: Kubuntu 20.04

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Hooray » Sat Jan 02, 2016 2:49 am

Nasal is just a weird name for a programming language that is heavily based on ECMAScript/JavaScript concepts (well, at the time).
The original idea was to come up with something peopel wanted to call "FGScript", i.e. FlightGear Scripting Language.
At the end of the day, the language does not matter too much, because the main constraints are going to be the determined by 1) the interfacing mechanism, 2) the interfacing functionality, 3) the modules/libraries available.

Nasal not being actively maintained, or not being widely used elsewhere, has not led to it not being widely used by fgdata contributors.

Like others said already, there isn't much missing to pull this off, and Nasal can often be used to work around certain limitations (and lack of core developer support), but scripting is not necessarily the best solution to implement certain features, and FlightGear also hasn't been designed, developed and maintained with "moddability" in mind, i.e. should we continue to see hugely different standpoints among active contributors, it would make sense to reconsider that, given that "modding" is almost certainly the option that is to be preferred for the sake of the project instead of seeing it possibly forked by those whose ideas/contributions are not that well received by the core of active contributors/developers.
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: 12707
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:40 am
Pronouns: THOU

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Raider1 » Sat Jan 02, 2016 4:10 am

Foxtrot15 wrote in Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:10 pm:
I'm sure that the KSUU Crew has been noticed, and definitely raised some eyebrows. Despite being biased, I can say that we don't like shooting each other down that much, not to even talk of bombing. In fact, majority of our time is spent on formation flying and refuelling training. We do occasionally dogfight, but we do it duel style: both sides agreeing to the rules and keeping our weapons when the other side calls a time-out. Being one of the larger military groups, I can say that the probability of war simulation is rather low now.


Hey everyone:

I feel somewhat compelled to wade into this since efforts made by a group that includes myself may be in a small way partially responsible for some of the increased interest in "combat" simulation...

First, and most importantly, I am not really entitled to an opinion, since I am not a programmer and have contributed essentially nothing to this wonderful simulation. I offer my thoughts here only because I think they may be representative of a larger group of people, some of which are actively engaged in improving or creating within the flightgear world.

I know that it has been mentioned that the KSUU Crew has been becoming increasingly active. I hope that everyone (even those vehemently opposed to tactical/combat flight in this sim) can appreciate that this group of people are doing everything they can to be responsible and mature. From a flying/interaction standpoint, we are trying hard to establish rules that ensure that those who do not want to be involved are not. We have tried to create scenarios that focus on military facilities and airspace, and have tried to make it clear to everyone involved that we don't view inappropriate behavior positively. In my opinion, this has actually benefited the sim in a number of ways. There are a number of regular pilots who, prior to KSUU Crew, were known to engage civilian aircraft, ignore ATCs, etc., and now spend their time flying in formations, use appropriate flight, landing, and departure procedures, respect civilian aircraft, and are generally good neighbors. I honestly think that this informal group has something to do with that.

I do understand that there has been abuse in the past, and that some actors have simulated scenarios that were exceptionally distasteful. I can imagine how this has affected the opinions of many developers, as it is of concern to me as well. However, I do believe that there is nothing that can be done to "teach" good taste and appropriate behavior if there is no alternative outlet for those who do wish to play with extremes. In a lot of ways, I view the development of tactical applications very much like building skate/bike parks. No matter how large a majority want to enjoy a nice ride, there will always be someone wanting to push boundaries or take risks. By giving these types of people an outlet that is controlled and focused, we make life easier for everyone.

As Foxtrot15 mentions, we spend much of our time flying formation, practicing carrier landings, learning navigation techniques, and taking pictures! I know that some of the core members of the KSUU Crew envision a future time where we have a core crew that:

    - understands the advantages and limitations of their position, airframe, weapons systems, team composition, etc, and are exceptionally competent not just in the art of flying, but in the arts of decision-making, teamwork, and management of forces;

    - provides a test-bed for other types of development, such as advances in AI flight/guidance, stress/damage modelling, information sharing in MP settings (such as exists in todays air battle space), radar systems, etc.

Please understand that we don't aim to be a bunch of guys and gals running around shooting stuff. Ideally, our hope is that when we have events, we will have mission planning sessions, develop tactical plans, use appropriate systems for associated goals, and generally do a lot more than just make things go boom. In fact, in our first event, a capture the flag competition, not a single shot was fired by any aircraft involved because "strategy" was used in favor of aggression.

It isn't about violence, but rather creating challenge. In a 20-30 minute air engagement with a team-mate against a team of two, I may hit the fire button once or twice. In all likelihood, I will not see the resulting impact, as I have to move on to new issues, questions, decisions, etc... and chances are I am miles away from it in the first place. But in that 20-30 minutes, I have checked instruments dozens of times, I have considered and re-considered my fuel situation relative to my conserved energy and what I might be called to do to support my team, I have on countless occasions had to calculate multiple positions (friendly and adversary) using only my radar and the data on my VSD (I fly Richard's F-15), anticipate the intentions of others based on that information, and make and communicate a tactical decision that affects not only me, but my partner. This is an amazing thing that FG provides... and has provided me (a mid-thirties bureaucrat) with a wonderful new avenue to learn and grow. It has also led to me learning more about both the air-frames I fly (and fly with), the real-world tactics that are employed when using them, etc. It has, in my opinion, equipped me as a non-programmer with the ability to contribute to the efforts of the developers who create these great tools. More importantly, though, it is doing the same for people who DO have the tools (skills, ability, and time) to improve the sim from a programming standpoint, meaning we all benefit.

I think that the majority of the folks who are getting more motivated toward these types of efforts are less interested in "explosions", "crashes", and the other evidence of violent encounters and more interested in the challenge that can be presented by competition. I am not going to be "that guy" and say that one kind of flight is better than another. But I know that I personally would not know the air-frames I fly nearly as well as I do if I didn't have the prospect of friendly competition driving me to put so much time into it.

It was mentioned in this thread that perhaps a separate thread to discuss these types of applications, and what needs to be done (and what limits need to be set/understood) should be established. I would welcome such an effort, and I know a great number of smart, motivated people exist who would love an organized effort that served not just to create tools for our efforts, but that serve the greater FG community.

In the end, I am sure that the majority of the folks who are interested in this type of development are keenly aware of the reservations many of you have. I know we (they) are willing to listen, to be respectful, and to be good collaborators. Please let me know when we are failing to demonstrate that.

Sorry for the book.... and Happy New Year!
Raider1
(Alternate call-signs: Raid-1, Raid-2)

Member of Operation Red Flag (OPRF)
http://opredflag.shivtr.com/
Raider1
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 5:09 pm
Location: Texas, USA
Callsign: Raider1
Version: 2016
OS: Win 10

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Thorsten » Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:01 am

It literally makes me sick when I hear anyone reach a mindset that closing off or shutting down a potential good thing because it can be used as a bad thing.


I wish people had pulled the plug on nuclear physics before we got armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. I wish they will pull the plug before we can genetically engineer a super-disease specifically wiping an ethnic group.

Just two case examples - it depends on how good the good thing is and how bad the bad thing is.

It also depends on how reasonable the people are who deal with Potential Good Thing (TM). Nuclear power in the hands of a democratic nation worries me considerably less than nuclear power in the hands of a religious dictatorship.

And that's actually my point here. I was assuming to be dealing with people who are willing to support a viable mode of operations (aka the direct weapons effects as addon) and respect the position of those who want to keep FG civilian, in turn I was willing to help out with my experience to help make the addon work, it turns out I am dealing with people who just want their thing.

I read all sorts of passionate arguments here - what I've not seen for instance is a single KSSU crew member making a statement on the mailing list that you'd in fact be content with a non-integrated addon development and that anyone arguing for integration doesn't speak in your name. So - it seems to me we're in fact not all on the same page.

Anyway - FG is by design and virtue of GPL guaranteed to be open. So even if you want to create a full fleet of Nazi airplanes, bomb London twenty times over and distribute models of concentration camps throughout Europe, there is nobody in the devel team who can shut you down.

However, I would argue against any such scenario committed to the repositories, and I would never support it in any way in any work I do. Not getting the support of people is not the same as being shut down however.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 12490
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:33 am

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby wlbragg » Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:35 am

I wish people had pulled the plug on nuclear physics before we got armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons

That is an excellent point in the other direction for sure. I happen to be in complete agreement with you on this one, you simply can't put it back in the bottle and it eventually will come back to bite us all.

Nuclear power in the hands of a democratic nation worries me considerably less than nuclear power in the hands of a religious dictatorship.

You would think so, yet look who is the only country to actually used the technology to intentionally cause harm. That really makes it a scary proposition!
Kansas and Ohio/Midwest scenery development.
KEQA, 3AU, KRCP Airport Layout
Intel i7/GeForce RTX 2070/Max-Q
User avatar
wlbragg
 
Posts: 7588
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:31 am
Location: Kansas (Tornado Alley), USA
Callsign: WC2020
Version: next
OS: Win10/Linux/RTX 2070

PreviousNext

Return to The FlightGear project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests