Board index FlightGear Development Scenery

Next-generation scenery generating?

Questions and discussion about enhancing and populating the FlightGear world.

Re: Next-generation scenery generating?

Postby Thorsten » Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:59 am

Hello, indeed I don't know why the ego of some developers doesn't allow this project to officially see the light of day.


I'm sure that's the stumbling block - developers are a bunch of mean-spirited nerds who out of spite withhold great features from users.

I'm not sure whether this kind of communication will get you anywhere, but maybe it was worth a try.

However, with the arrival of FS 2020, the improvements of X-Plane 11 and even Aerofly FS2, the photo-textured floors are no longer an option, but simply an obligation.


To whom by whom? FG is an all-volunteer project, we do not compete with X-Plane 11 & Co, that'd be fundamentally silly - unlike FG, they actually have a budget for graphics artists, textures, whatever. You can't expect to produce the same digital assets (3d models, textures, sounds,...) with zero budget and with a million dollars - no amount of wishful thinking about 'obligations' is going to change that reality.

But - anyone who feels an obligation better gets working rather than talking... :D
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11748
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Next-generation scenery generating?

Postby V12 » Sun Sep 22, 2019 2:49 pm

helijah :
You are right, FG scenery is not optimal, but it is not developer's ego problem. Problem is how obtain that phototextures compatible with GPL. Developers can't use googleearth or similar commercial sources.
With small amount of patience, You can significant improve material definition. Check my angry posts about scenery around Paro. In default it is tragedy, but with some lines added to the material definitions I was able develop acceptable results.

Default :
Image

After changes :
Image

Other area - default :

Image

After changes :

Image
Fly high, fly fast - fly Concorde !
User avatar
V12
 
Posts: 2042
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:27 pm
Location: LZIB
Callsign: BAWV12

Re: Next-generation scenery generating?

Postby helijah » Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:53 pm

I am really tired of these people who relegate fantastic royalty-free improvements to the background (unlike what they say). Silver has no impact on OSGEarth and the available free textures. That is a ridiculous and totally false excuse.

As a reminder:






And this is already from 2013. It is so easy to forget what makes flying more enjoyable....... We must stop believing that it is possible to do as well with algorithms as good and well done as they are!
Not taking into account existing flight simulators simply because they are paid projects is ridiculous. Everyone who is passionate about planes and simulators compares, often uses several simulators. Not looking at what others are doing is a very strange way to consider FlightGear. FlightGear IS and REMAINS a Flight Simulator just like FS 2020, X-Plane 11, Aerofly FS2 and others..... You may not have this chance, but FlightGear is regularly quoted as a reference in a French magazine National dedicated exclusively to simulation.
It is really annoying to see that for more than 6 years people have shown you that it is possible to do 1000 times better and that no one agrees to do it at last.
Some planes (and other) for FlightGear
http://helijah.free.fr
and
http://embaranger.free.fr
User avatar
helijah
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Chartres (France)
Callsign: helijah
IRC name: helijah
Version: GIT
OS: GNU/Linux

Re: Next-generation scenery generating?

Postby Thorsten » Thu Oct 03, 2019 7:55 pm

It is really annoying to see that for more than 6 years people have shown you that it is possible to do 1000 times better and that no one agrees to do it at last.


So why don't you do your 'better Flightgear' fork, do whatever you want and see what happens? Don't be dragged down by the mean developers - have a go at your own much better fork! The license explicitly allows you to do all of that - good luck!

We must stop believing that it is possible to do as well with algorithms as good and well done as they are!


No, you must stop believing that other people need to make you happy and just do yourself what you think needs to be done.

Just like the rest of us.

FlightGear IS and REMAINS a Flight Simulator


Yeah - precisely - a flight simulator, not a scenery display engine. There used to be flight simulators without any scenery where you could train procedures. You really need to learn to appreciate flight dynamics before pretty visuals :mrgreen:
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11748
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Next-generation scenery generating?

Postby bugman » Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:12 am

Note, that this is the very last communication on the subject:


I'll quote Jeff Bigg's message in full for the record:

Re: [Flightgear-devel] osgEarth update?
From: Jeff Biggs <jeff.biggs@si...> - 2015-04-16 21:53:16
Attachments: Message as HTML
Curt,

The osgEarth integration is still alive and well. In general, performance and stability are quite good and the memory footprint seems reasonable. Day to day I use a 3.1 version of Flightgear but I recently ported to a 3.4 tag of Flightgear and all seems fine.

I cancelled the pull request way back in order to improve building surface clamping issues. It is improved but not perfect but my feeling is that having the implementation incorporated into the Flightgear core will promote improvement more quickly. osgEarth will be run-time disabled by default.

In addition to the port to 3.4 it is also worth upgrading to a later release of osgEarth (~2.6). However, there are some issues that I ran into related to the automatic airport heightfield integration. I will be revisiting that implementation shortly as I owe that to a customer of mine.

On the build system front, Hooray has offered to help get the Superbuild fully checked out with this integration. For the time being, I use a automatic builder that only works on Windows. We believe that extending the Superbuild is definitely the way to make the osgEarth integration most accessible for all platforms.

During the initial pull request, there was a review from James (if i remember correctly) and I made the requested changes so I am hoping that our next review will go smoothly.


jeff


Jeff Biggs


On 4/16/15 3:04 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:

> Right before our v3.0 feature freeze (a bit of unlucky timing) a large
> set of patches were presented that integrated osgEarth with
> FlightGear. I did a quick search of my email, and it doesn't seem
> like we've ever returned to look at this again. Is anyone familiar
> with the osgEarth integration effort that can bring us up to speed on
> the current status?
>
> Are there integration/code/structure/build-system/platform concerns
> that remain to be resolved? Have these patches been tracking the
> current development tree?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Curt.


So, Jeff put the brakes on the merger of this code - he said it was not ready. And we have all been waiting for him since April 2015! No one, apart from the developer himself, is blocking this.

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1804
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: Next-generation scenery generating?

Postby Parnikkapore » Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:31 am

...so would OSGEarth / photoscenery be integrated in the WS 4.0 spec being discussed on the mailing list?
There are free alternatives to every program you encounter. You just have to find them.
Parnikkapore
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:16 am
Callsign: HS-FGS
Version: next [PPA]
OS: Mint 18

Re: Next-generation scenery generating?

Postby Thorsten » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:38 am

No, there's currently no such plan discussed (although the proposal would make it easier to create custom photo scenery). I'm not aware of any FG developer who believes photo scenery is the way to go for FG - you can find a forum post by Richard where he makes a case study and points out the many pitfalls of the approach.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11748
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Next-generation scenery generating?

Postby helijah » Fri Oct 04, 2019 4:37 pm

There. Apart from the ridiculous and uninteresting answers of MRS. Thorsten who shows everyone how HE sees the future and feels so convinced to hold the absolute knowledge.
Thanks to Bugman for a much more serious and interesting answer that brings a beginning of answer. Everyone can therefore deduce that there is a single person who tries as much as he can to really advance FlightGear and that he does not find any help from the devs. Because of course if he was no longer alone in trying this addition it would go faster.
And that Thortsen tries to believe that he is the only one who holds the truth and knowledge is quite painful. To date FlihghtGear uses more than 300 of my 3D aircraft models. They are found in CEWs everywhere. And whatever he may believe. Some are modified, used, improved or damaged by others. And that's very good. They are also used in X-Plane, FS X, Ama III and other simulators. The future and the open source is not to lock oneself into one's beliefs and small personal works. The future and the open source is the sharing, exchange and acceptance that others can have good ideas and accept not to be the best. The ego has no place in the opensource

Even if this gentleman thinks he knows everything, I also knew the simulators with mountains that were only green pyramids and other extremely simple 3D elements. I even have a lot of boxes (with floppy disks:)) from that time at home. But that doesn't justify FlightGear staying behind and not being, like many other open-source products, as good or better than its models. What a strange way to conceive the opensource than to want to stay in the past

After all this, I'm going back to Blender. Oh here is an open source product, as good if not better than many equivalent products I would do the textures on Gimp and write with LibreOffice by browsing this site with Chromium and reading my emails with Thunderbirds...etc..... No, I wouldn't go back to MS Dos, or GEM or Workbench or any other simply because it was the norm when I was young
Some planes (and other) for FlightGear
http://helijah.free.fr
and
http://embaranger.free.fr
User avatar
helijah
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Chartres (France)
Callsign: helijah
IRC name: helijah
Version: GIT
OS: GNU/Linux

Re: Next-generation scenery generating?

Postby Thorsten » Fri Oct 04, 2019 4:49 pm

Thorsten who shows everyone how HE sees the future and feels so convinced to hold the absolute knowledge.


I don't think that anything I wrote here translates to what you write here (and I kinda doubt French works so different from English that you would not understand my words).

Everyone can therefore deduce that there is a single person who tries as much as he can to really advance FlightGear and that he does not find any help from the devs. Because of course if he was no longer alone in trying this addition it would go faster.


Which is why I suggested you join him on your own fork - so you would get rid of the mean developers and be able to help him. But you don't want that for some weird reason. In fact, it seems you just want to tell others what they should do.

So the fact is that of the people who absolutely want OSGEarth intrgration, no one wants to do any work for it since 2013, and the people who do not see OSGEarth as particularly useful, well, do what they think is useful.

Which raises the question - who is really to blame for the lack of progress - the people who work a lot on what they believe in, or the people who endlessly complain about that others do not work on what they think needs to be done?

It is really annoying to see that for more than 6 years people have shown you that it is possible to do 1000 times better and that no one agrees to do it at last.


Because, unlike you, others don't think it's 1000 times better, they think it's worse all things considered. Which is the reason why they don't agree to do it at last. Whereas the people who think it's so much better are content to sit back and complain.

Which at the end of the day is the really annoying thing.

And that Thortsen tries to believe that he is the only one who holds the truth and knowledge is quite painful. To date FlihghtGear uses more than 300 of my 3D aircraft models.


I recommend aspirin - it's an excellent painkiller.

There's really no logical connection between the first and the second sentence. Would you feel less pain about me if FG would use only 30 of your 3d models? Or if there were 5000 being used? Would you feel more or less pain if your 3d models came with a realistic FDM or not? Or is the pain in the actual truth that you've been wanting a feature since 2013, but the actual reason that it's not there is not that anyone opposed it but that you didn't bother to work on it in any way?
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11748
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Next-generation scenery generating?

Postby helijah » Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:19 pm

You are definitely a total bad and pathetic person.

You are asking me to try to help with the integration of OSGEarth, under the understanding that I am not doing anything and I am not here to criticize. But thousands of people use my 3D aircraft models through FlightGear (and other simulators). It seems to me that my contribution to FlightGear is absolutely not insignificant. Your comments are not only unpleasant but above all without any justification. I still have about ten planes in progress at the moment, which you will soon discover. Trying to make people believe that they don't want OSGEarth in flightgear is really a demonstration of your lack of interest in the open source world as long as it doesn't serve YOUR interests.

Your answers are not. These are just ridiculous allegations based on a vacuum and you rely on them to prove that YOU are right. Just see the number of posts here about OSGearth, but of course you will still find a good excuse not to try something. I'm just sad for Curt and FlightGear
Some planes (and other) for FlightGear
http://helijah.free.fr
and
http://embaranger.free.fr
User avatar
helijah
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Chartres (France)
Callsign: helijah
IRC name: helijah
Version: GIT
OS: GNU/Linux

Re: Next-generation scenery generating?

Postby wkitty42 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:26 pm

helijah wrote in Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:19 pm:You are asking me to try to help with the integration of OSGEarth, under the understanding that I am not doing anything

that's not what he said... he said that you haven't done anything to work on the OSGEarth integration into flightgear...
"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: 6661
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:46 pm
Location: central NC, USA
Callsign: wk42
Version: git next
OS: Kubuntu 20.04

Re: Next-generation scenery generating?

Postby Thorsten » Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:29 pm

You are definitely a total bad and pathetic person.


I still don't think personal attacks will make your case, but since you think the same of the rest of the development team, I feel in good company.

You are asking me to try to help with the integration of OSGEarth, under the understanding that I am not doing anything and I am not here to criticize. But thousands of people use my 3D aircraft models through FlightGear (and other simulators). It seems to me that my contribution to FlightGear is absolutely not insignificant.


No, I'm pointing out that you're asking the developers (probably including myself) who are not interested in OSGEarth to implement it whereas you, who is interested, refuse to work on it.

So my contribution to FG is not insignificant, yours isn't either, James' isn't, TorstenD's isn't - but why should they work on what you want rather than you?

Your comments are not only unpleasant but above all without any justification.


While they may not be pleasant for you, I believe they're pretty justified. I wanted better visuals of atmosphere/light interaction - so I learned the tricks of GLSL coding and rendering and created it. Sounds to me like a viable strategy - and it worked. You wanted OSGEarth integration in 2013 and... opted to do nothing. Which is not a viable strategy, and hence there's no progress.

See the difference? :D

Trying to make people believe that they don't want OSGEarth in flightgear is really a demonstration of your lack of interest in the open source world as long as it doesn't serve YOUR interests.


I don't want to make anyone believe that he's not interested - I'm merely pointing out that I am not interested (and that I don't know of a developer who really is). So yes, I code what serves MY interests - I'm a volunteer coding in my spare time, not your coding slave.

Just see the number of posts here about OSGearth, but of course you will still find a good excuse not to try something. I'm just sad for Curt and FlightGear


Again - people are interested in all sorts of things. The forum is full of ideas. And I have a very good excuse to not work on every idea that's presented - it's I'm not interested. It's how OpenSource works - people pick something they're interested in and work on it.

So it's not me who is finding excuses - it's you - because unlike me you are interested, and yet opt to do nothing. Why is that?
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11748
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Next-generation scenery generating?

Postby helijah » Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:50 pm

That's exactly what I was saying. An unfounded apology and your assertion that YOU are not interested in OSGEarth no matter what FlightGear users think, it's not your problem. For the rest, as always, pseudo answers without foundation and without interest. People will judge how you view FlightGear.
If you don't like one thing it then it's not interesting. Whatever FlightGear users may think.
And wanting to make it look like I'm questioning your work or the work of other developers is really pathetic. It is your way of seeing things that is deplorable. Your way of thinking. Not the work already done by you and others.
Some planes (and other) for FlightGear
http://helijah.free.fr
and
http://embaranger.free.fr
User avatar
helijah
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Chartres (France)
Callsign: helijah
IRC name: helijah
Version: GIT
OS: GNU/Linux

Re: Next-generation scenery generating?

Postby Thorsten » Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:55 pm

And wanting to make it look like I'm questioning your work or the work of other developers is really pathetic. It is your way of seeing things that is deplorable.


Here's you not questioning the work of other developers:

, indeed I don't know why the ego of some developers doesn't allow this project to officially see the light of day.


I don't need to make you look like anything - you're quite good at this yourself :D

If you don't like one thing it then it's not interesting. Whatever FlightGear users may think.


That's not what I said - I said I'm not interested - obviously you see it interesting, and I recognize that - but keep wondering why according to you I should work on what you find interesting, rather than you work on you find interesting.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11748
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Next-generation scenery generating?

Postby helijah » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:23 pm

Thorsten wrote in Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:55 pm:Here's you not questioning the work of other developers:

, indeed I don't know why the ego of some developers doesn't allow this project to officially see the light of day.


And since when is this a reconsideration of the developers' work...... Only the person who feels targeted answered. And that's absolutely not surprising.

and everything else and in the same principle you distort the words to justify your personal choices.
Some planes (and other) for FlightGear
http://helijah.free.fr
and
http://embaranger.free.fr
User avatar
helijah
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Chartres (France)
Callsign: helijah
IRC name: helijah
Version: GIT
OS: GNU/Linux

PreviousNext

Return to Scenery

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest