Board index FlightGear The FlightGear project

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightg

Questions about the FlightGear organisation, website, wiki etc.

Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Poll ended at Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:32 am

Should nuclear bombs be allowed to be included in FlightGear?
11
50%
Or would they offend too many people and should be banned?
11
50%
I dunno
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 22

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightg

Postby timjschong » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:32 am

Do you think nukes should be included in FG??
please read this topic before voting
http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8725

Whoops. Sorry. Please read option one as Yes! and option 2 as No!

if you choose option 3, WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU DOING VOTING??

@jackermod
Don't worry, the results won't mean anything. You can continue to develop, but then again, I couldn't enforce it if I wanted (which I don't) :)
timjschong
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:30 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Callsign: timothy
Version: 2
OS: Mac, sometimes Win 7

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightg

Postby Algernon » Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:22 pm

timjschong wrote:if you choose option 3, WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU DOING VOTING??

There are a number of reasons why someone would wish to vote as an abstention, only one of which is "I dunno" :)
Algernon
FGUK - A FlightGear community in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland
User avatar
Algernon
 
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:55 pm
Callsign: G-ALGY
Version: 3.0
OS: W7U

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightg

Postby HHS » Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:04 pm

I thought this topic is over, why it is warmed up again?
Up, up and away
User avatar
HHS
Retired
 
Posts: 3624
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:09 am
Version: GIT

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightg

Postby jack » Fri Oct 08, 2010 3:12 am

HHS, I too thought the topic had finally died, but an inexperienced forum member didnt seem to understand that it would be a good idea to let dead topics rest in peace. Hopefully the topic will quickly die so I can stop wasting my time having to defend myself and get back to developing.
For Military Aircraft, Scenery, and more, visit http://alphashangar.co.nr/

'Retired' from FlightGear as of July 2011. You can contact me via my website if you'd like to pick up any old projects.
User avatar
jack
Retired
 
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:26 pm
Location: KLVK
Callsign: Alpha-J, Rescue1
Version: GIT
OS: Mac OS X

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightg

Postby timjschong » Fri Oct 08, 2010 5:48 am

@Algernon
If you choose to remain neutral, you could just not vote.

@jackmermod
You don't really have to defend yourself. The topic really is going in circles anyway.
At the moment, they're talking about about the same thing as they did a page ago.

An interesting thing is, it bears some similarity to the atheist vs religion debate that's lasted decades.
timjschong
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:30 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Callsign: timothy
Version: 2
OS: Mac, sometimes Win 7

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightg

Postby Thorsten » Fri Oct 08, 2010 8:45 am

I thought this topic is over, why it is warmed up again?


Because it wasn't actually resolved in any meaningful way and still isn't. How could there be any resolution, if no one is willing to compromise even a bit?

***

In general, with regard to taking votes - Flightgear isn't a democracy. It's possibly better described as a meritocracy - few people have control over the project servers, and they do so on the merit of their past work.

So whatever 'the community' represented by forum menbers votes decides is irrelevant as far as official distributions are concerned unless it convinces 'the other community' of developers in charge.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10157
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightg

Postby Algernon » Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:12 am

timjschong wrote:@Algernon
If you choose to remain neutral, you could just not vote.

But then you are not being represented by a vote at all, and furthermore, the turnout statistics would be wrong. Here in the UK, an abstention in a government election would be a spoiled ballot paper - your attendance to vote is registered, as is your refusal to vote for any of the listed candidates, by spoiling your paper - effectively an abstention. It isn't really democracy without it. My point was, though, an abstention could be for many reasons, not just because "I dunno" - personally, I can't take part in this poll because none of the options represent my feelings on the subject, thus I cannot be represented, thus it isn't democratic.

As Thorsten says, though, the FlightGear project isn't a democracy, isn't anything like a democracy, and while a poll, if it yielded, say, a turnout of 90% of the registered forum members, might be interesting (if still not accurate) as to public opinion, the guardians of the project are under no obligation to pay any attention whatsoever.
Algernon
FGUK - A FlightGear community in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland
User avatar
Algernon
 
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:55 pm
Callsign: G-ALGY
Version: 3.0
OS: W7U

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightg

Postby timjschong » Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:21 am

OK. I'm not so familiar with the UK system, in AU people 'donkey vote'.
timjschong
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:30 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Callsign: timothy
Version: 2
OS: Mac, sometimes Win 7

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightg

Postby Algernon » Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:23 am

Ah of course, Aus has preferential voting and compulsory turnout, if I remember rightly, hence the differences.
Algernon
FGUK - A FlightGear community in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland
User avatar
Algernon
 
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:55 pm
Callsign: G-ALGY
Version: 3.0
OS: W7U

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightg

Postby timjschong » Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:31 am

Yep. Which would mean that creating a choice of abstention would not be too useful. Though it would stop the donkey voting.
timjschong
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:30 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Callsign: timothy
Version: 2
OS: Mac, sometimes Win 7

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightg

Postby richter » Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:46 pm

What exactly do you mean by "banned"?
Aircraft: Britten-Norman BN-2 Islander
Airports: RJTT
richter
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: Tokyo
Version: 2
OS: Slackware Linux 12.2

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightg

Postby jack » Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:07 pm

richter wrote:What exactly do you mean by "banned"?


That choice on the poll appears to be implying that, if the majority chooses that option, then Nuclear Weapons would no longer be allowed in Flightgear. Thus, this poll is only for data gathering and has absolutely no authority over the Flightgear project. Regardless of the results, I will continue to work towards making Flightgear as realistic as possible, which includes the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
For Military Aircraft, Scenery, and more, visit http://alphashangar.co.nr/

'Retired' from FlightGear as of July 2011. You can contact me via my website if you'd like to pick up any old projects.
User avatar
jack
Retired
 
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:26 pm
Location: KLVK
Callsign: Alpha-J, Rescue1
Version: GIT
OS: Mac OS X

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightg

Postby Groucho » Sat Oct 09, 2010 7:40 pm

jackmermod wrote: I will continue to work towards making Flightgear as realistic as possible, which includes the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction.


Can't resist to state this again: WoMDs do not make FG more realistic. The contrary is the case. You will not be able to model them realistically. It will always remain a trivialised and unrealistic copy.
If you want to make FG more realistic work on flight models for cruise missiles, etc. Regarding realism WoMDs are a waste of time.
_____________________________________
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: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightg

Postby jack » Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:53 pm

Groucho wrote:Can't resist to state this again: WoMDs do not make FG more realistic. The contrary is the case. You will not be able to model them realistically. It will always remain a trivialised and unrealistic copy.
If you want to make FG more realistic work on flight models for cruise missiles, etc. Regarding realism WoMDs are a waste of time.


This is your opinion based on your moral beliefs. You have said yourself that it is wrong to impose your moral values upon others.
For Military Aircraft, Scenery, and more, visit http://alphashangar.co.nr/

'Retired' from FlightGear as of July 2011. You can contact me via my website if you'd like to pick up any old projects.
User avatar
jack
Retired
 
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:26 pm
Location: KLVK
Callsign: Alpha-J, Rescue1
Version: GIT
OS: Mac OS X

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightg

Postby Groucho » Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:48 am

jackmermod wrote:
Groucho wrote:Can't resist to state this again: WoMDs do not make FG more realistic. The contrary is the case. You will not be able to model them realistically. It will always remain a trivialised and unrealistic copy.
If you want to make FG more realistic work on flight models for cruise missiles, etc. Regarding realism WoMDs are a waste of time.


This is your opinion based on your moral beliefs. You have said yourself that it is wrong to impose your moral values upon others.


This has nothing to do with moral or belief. It is a technical constraint. Working on eg. a cruise missile and its flight model results in a higher level of realism than attempting to realistically model a nuclear warhead and its implications on eg. global weather conditions, not to speak about EMP, moving firestorms, fallout,etc. Just a big bang, fire and a cloud is not realistic.
_____________________________________
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

Next

Return to The FlightGear project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest