Board index FlightGear Support 3rd Party Repositories

FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Thorsten » Sun May 08, 2016 7:36 am

Excuse me if this is a newbie question with an obvious answer, but how can I convert this for use in FG?



Please note that FGMEMBERS-TERRAGIT is a 3rd party project designed to compete with the official TerraScenery and TerraSync infrastructure. It is part of the FGMEMBERS infrastructure collection - primarily GitHub forks of the official FlightGear infrastructure on SourceForge, and what you submit / create via that infrastructure will not become part of the FG scenery or readily usable by other FG users.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 9997
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Reporting "broken" Airports

Postby SHM » Sun May 08, 2016 7:49 am

Thorsten wrote:Please note that FGMEMBERS-TERRAGIT is a 3rd party project designed to compete with the official TerraScenery and TerraSync infrastructure. It is part of the FGMEMBERS infrastructure collection - primarily GitHub forks of the official FlightGear infrastructure on SourceForge, and what you submit / create via that infrastructure will not become part of the FG scenery or readily usable by other FG users.


Fritz at the end, its your decision. Chose whether you want the so called "official scenery" or the Much better Proven TerraGit

These should help you to take a decision. (There are many more, take a look at [url]thejabberwocky.net[/url])

For Kansai:
Image
The terraGIT update took all changes, including an instant gratification new layout, all new buildings (no need to reformat and prepare obstinately for scenery databases), Jetway and groundnet files available (which cant happen via terrasync, also), and osm content also displayed properly by default!
It was total victory in terms of updating our beloved FlightGear scenery, and with instant gratification.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Chubu on Terrasync
Image
Chubu on TerraGIT
Image
Image
Image
terraSync
Image

Pumping the water Off Miho
terraGIT
Image

terraSync
Image
terraGIT
Image

terraSync
Image
terraGIT
Image

terraSync
Image
terraGit
Image

terraSync
Image

RJSD
TerraGIT
Image

terrasync
Image

terraGIT
Image

terraSync
Image

SHM
Scenery Developer of terraGit (much better than terrasync)
User avatar
SHM
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 10:54 am
Location: India
Callsign: SM
Version: 2016.1.1
OS: Windows 10

Re: Reporting "broken" Airports

Postby Richard » Sun May 08, 2016 8:25 am

SHM wrote in Sun May 08, 2016 7:49 am:Fritz at the end, its your decision. Chose whether you want the so called "official scenery" or the Much better Proven TerraGit


As a pilot use whatever scenery download method you prefer. TerraGit currently has some fixed and improved airports -you download what you want before starting; whereas TerraSync has not got these fixes but will download as you fly. This is a pilot's choice and isn't really relevant to the procedure for reporting broken airports.

However as a scenery developer making updates it is important to understand that the correct procedure for airport related layout problems is to submit airport problems to the X-Plane gateway. Anything not submitted to the X-Plane gateway will not be included in the next official scenery build.

Until the next scenery is built an individual may wish to find an alternative version of the scenery that has been patched. There are many scenery downloads available that have temporary patches; some built from OSM that are much more detailed, some that are handcrafted for specific purposes (e.g. the FGUK homebase of EGOD).

Anybody developing scenery needs to be aware of the supported procedure for this as patching terrasync/git, or any other storage method is a short term fix until WorldScenery 3.0 is ready, at which point any terrasync/git patches will not be in the new scenery.

So basically, follow the supported procedures, or be aware that when WS3.0 is built and released any WS2.0 updates not submitted following the correct procedures will be lost. That is to say when WS3.0 is released any terrasync/git patches won't be there, at this point the choice would be to continue using terragit and WS2.0 with some fixes, *or* use WS3.0 with all of the fixes, better LOD, meshes, etc..

My guess (and it is just a guess) is that it will be probably 2 years before WS3.0 is ready; so it does make sense to patch existing scenery, but my advice (and it is just advice) is for scenery developers to follow the correct procedures so that any changes are not lost in the future.
Richard
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:17 pm
Version: Git
OS: Win10

Re: Reporting "broken" Airports

Postby SHM » Sun May 08, 2016 9:22 am

Richard wrote in Sun May 08, 2016 8:25 am:As a pilot use whatever scenery download method you prefer. TerraGit currently has some fixed and improved airports -you download what you want before starting; whereas TerraSync has not got these fixes but will download as you fly. This is a pilot's choice and isn't really relevant to the procedure for reporting broken airports.

Great, that you understood that.

However as a scenery developer making updates it is important to understand that the correct procedure for airport related layout problems is to submit airport problems to the X-Plane gateway. Anything not submitted to the X-Plane gateway will not be included in the next official scenery build.

I don't know whether you know or you don't know I'm a scenery developer myself. I used to develop the Airport layouts and upload it to the gateway, I do now too. So, I'm in no way preventing my work from getting into the next scenery build.
After waiting so long only, I decided enough was enough, I am going to search for alternatives. So, I shifted to the FGMembers team whose ideas were right. Even if you look at the above post you'll find that I actually pointed him to the gateway telling that it probably should be fixed in that.


Until the next scenery is built an individual may wish to find an alternative version of the scenery that has been patched. There are many scenery downloads available that have temporary patches; some built from OSM that are much more detailed, some that are handcrafted for specific purposes (e.g. the FGUK homebase of EGOD).

Now, come on who would want to go for hunting sceneries all over the Internet. TerraGit provides a better distribution where everything is in one place and it even pulls updates from the terrasync. Its just the best of both worlds.

SHM
Scenery Developer of terraGit (much better than terrasync)
User avatar
SHM
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 10:54 am
Location: India
Callsign: SM
Version: 2016.1.1
OS: Windows 10

Re: Reporting "broken" Airports

Postby Thorsten » Sun May 08, 2016 9:50 am

My guess (and it is just a guess) is that it will be probably 2 years before WS3.0 is ready; so it does make sense to patch existing scenery, but my advice (and it is just advice) is for scenery developers to follow the correct procedures so that any changes are not lost in the future.


Note that for precisely that reason patches for the scenery can be accepted to terrasync and distributed to others as well, the main reason to submit them to a 3rd party repository instead is to make them available only to the 3rd party repository users.

Also note that screenshot comparisons are just nonsense, because they have zero information on how the underlying distribution mechanism works.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 9997
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Reporting "broken" Airports

Postby Richard » Sun May 08, 2016 10:56 am

SHM wrote in Sun May 08, 2016 9:22 am:I don't know whether you know or you don't know I'm a scenery developer myself. I used to develop the Airport layouts and upload it to the gateway, I do now too. So, I'm in no way preventing my work from getting into the next scenery build.


I've been watching the progress you're making with your scenery and its looking good. The purpose of my post was to ensure that it was clear what the official procedure was for anyone not aware of this procedure.

SHM wrote in Sun May 08, 2016 9:22 am:...TerraGit provides a better distribution where everything is in one place and it even pulls updates from terrasync.


If TerraGit can update from TerraSync, do you think it is a better idea to update TerraSync - as that way the tens of thousands of FlightGear pilots[1] not on the forums will benefit, not just the elite few who can operate git.

-------------
[1] since September last year I have observed over 8300 different MP usernames flying the 777-300ER.
Richard
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:17 pm
Version: Git
OS: Win10

Re: Reporting "broken" Airports

Postby statto » Sun May 08, 2016 11:35 am

Richard wrote in Sun May 08, 2016 10:56 am:If TerraGit can update from TerraSync, do you think it is a better idea to update TerraSync - as that way the tens of thousands of FlightGear pilots[1] not on the forums will benefit, not just the elite few who can operate git.


Yes, and we're working to that end.
Custom Scenery available from http://www.stattosoftware.com/flightgear
statto
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Reporting "broken" Airports

Postby SHM » Sun May 08, 2016 11:48 am

Richard wrote in Sun May 08, 2016 10:56 am:I've been watching the progress you're making with your scenery and its looking good. The purpose of my post was to ensure that it was clear what the official procedure was for anyone not aware of this procedure.

Thanks :D . Ok I got that.

If TerraGit can update from TerraSync, do you think it is a better idea to update TerraSync - as that way the tens of thousands of FlightGear pilots[1] not on the forums will benefit, not just the elite few who can operate git.


If I remember correctly, WS 2.0 was released somewhere near the end of 2013. Now its almost 2 and half years since and still there are many broken airports. If terrasync had corrected it, TerraGit would have not been founded. We're just aiming on fixing what is broken.

If terraGit was not there I probably wouldn't have started on developing the scenery for India nor would I have taken interest in the development of any other airports/places, because if I cant see my work soon and have to wait for years it just doesn't give any reason to continue.

Fritz had asked whether a list of airports was maintained anywhere, I just pointed it out to thejabberwocky.net since that is where I am maintaining it.

And we were even caught offguard yesterday during the festival when we saw many pilots having the TerraGit scenery, so I guess people wouldn't mind using Git if the end result they get is worth trying. P.S there is git GUI which can make it even easy.

since September last year I have observed over 8300 different MP usernames flying the 777-300ER

That is a pretty impressive statistic data. :wink:
Scenery Developer of terraGit (much better than terrasync)
User avatar
SHM
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 10:54 am
Location: India
Callsign: SM
Version: 2016.1.1
OS: Windows 10

Re: Reporting "broken" Airports

Postby Thorsten » Sun May 08, 2016 2:55 pm

If terrasync had corrected it, TerraGit would have not been founded.


Sure, we had a perfectly valid infrastructure to develop and distribute aircraft, including all the GPL complicance checks and procedures to verify some degree of consistency of things like key bindings across aircraft - and some people felt a GIT repository needed to be forked anyway (as far as I can see, mostly to get around the GPL complicance checks...)

The infrastructure to correct airports is perfectly valid (an SVN repository can accept commits), the problem of airport layouts has been recognized and updates are accepted. That has been announced quite a bit before TerraGit. Yet again some people felt they needed to have their own fork.

What's independent of the repository structure (GIT vs. SVN) in all cases is that someone actually has to build the scenery, check it, sign to guarantee GPL complicance and submit it to the repository before it can be used in any GPL licensed project.

So anyone with the ability to do these things can obviously submit the scenery to a repository. The only choice is whether to submit to the GIT repository with ~50 users or terrasync with > 20.000 users. And whether to go through GPL compliance checks or not.

Which is why your statement is just another piece of disinformation.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 9997
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Reporting "broken" Airports

Postby SHM » Sun May 08, 2016 4:17 pm

Isnt this your statement all the time. GPL violation GPL violation
Last edited by bugman on Sun May 08, 2016 5:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Deliberate provocation on a civilised public forum is not acceptable.
Scenery Developer of terraGit (much better than terrasync)
User avatar
SHM
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 10:54 am
Location: India
Callsign: SM
Version: 2016.1.1
OS: Windows 10

Re: Reporting "broken" Airports

Postby Thorsten » Sun May 08, 2016 5:06 pm

If you can't recognize the importance of avoiding copyright violations, then you've got a problem, not I.

But since we're at it, let me deconstruct that one, because it's really astonishing:

If terrasync had corrected it, TerraGit would have not been founded.


In other words, if feature X is desirable but not implemented by others, the solution is to create a fork and do it yourself. Not to just contribute to a solution. Not to initiate a discussion and see if a solution is found - no - fork away and do whatever you like.

If I had used that argument with rendering reasonable fog, we'd now have 'Flightgear ALS + AW'. Which wouldn't support MP at all, because, hey - I don't do MP, not interested. There'd also be 'Flightgear Rembrandt'. 'Flightgear ALS + AW' however could also not run the higher resolution scenery, because that required some core changes which I couldn't have made. So we'd have 'Flightgear hires scenery capable' (which probably could do MP as well) - but not ALS, AW or Rembrandt.

See the picture? We'd have ended up with about a hundred, partially compatible, partially incompatible FG forks. For a normal user, trying to run hires scenery in MP using ALS (which 'just works' with the FG we have created) would be impossible. Whereas if everyone would have used your type of 'reasoning', we'd have this huge mess.

Now, there's a good general principle to evaluate actions called the Categorical imperative: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

So - unless you think that everyone who misses a feature should create a fork (and a huge incompatible mess in the process) - YOU shouldn't do it either - you should do the reasonable thing and work together with everyone else to create one single framework.

Of course, as long as all others cooperate and contribute to a single framework, you can usually get away looking better by not playing nice (that's mathematically formulated in the Prisoner's dilemma if you're interested). Of course, if everyone does the same, it's misery a hundred times for everyone. Which is what a great thinker like Kant realized and was out to prevent - the right thing to do for everyone is not to maximize your short term gain, it is co-operation for the greater good of everyone.

Think for a minute what the state of FG would be if everyone would do his own fork for every new feature.
Last edited by bugman on Sun May 08, 2016 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Removing the personal attack (forum rule 1).
Thorsten
 
Posts: 9997
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Reporting "broken" Airports

Postby bugman » Sun May 08, 2016 5:55 pm

As a moderator, I have deleted the last couple of unacceptable posts. If this inappropriate behaviour continues, I will have to lock this thread to prevent it from degenerating any further.

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1527
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: Reporting "broken" Airports

Postby SHM » Sun May 08, 2016 6:01 pm

Explain inappropriate.

All I said was Thorsten wasnt subject to moderation like I was though he clearly violated. Be a man and keep this post here.

bugman via PM wrote:The following is a warning which has been issued to you by an administrator or moderator of this site.
Deliberate provocation of others on a civilised public forum is not acceptable behaviour.


Thorsten wrote:Think hard if you can.
It is also a "Deliberate provocation of others on a civilised public forum is not acceptable behaviour."

I am out of here anyway.

If anybody needs me contact me via email or at thejabberwocky.net or I will usually be on mumble.

Goodbye

SHM
Scenery Developer of terraGit (much better than terrasync)
User avatar
SHM
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 10:54 am
Location: India
Callsign: SM
Version: 2016.1.1
OS: Windows 10

Re: Reporting "broken" Airports

Postby wkitty42 » Sun May 08, 2016 9:14 pm

SHM wrote in Sun May 08, 2016 7:49 am:Fritz at the end, its your decision. Chose whether you want the so called "official scenery" or the Much better Proven TerraGit

terragit hasn't even been around long enough to be proven, reliable or trouble free... that statement is a huge bunch of wishful thinking and hope...
"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: 4762
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:46 pm
Location: central NC, USA
Callsign: wk42
Version: git next
OS: Kubuntu 14.04.5

Re: Reporting "broken" Airports

Postby Thorsten » Mon May 09, 2016 4:54 am

For the record, I agree that the deleted statement was inappropriate and would like to apologize to SHM for my choice of words (in truth, it came out harder than it was intended, but that's no excuse for not re-reading and correcting).
Thorsten
 
Posts: 9997
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Next

Return to 3rd Party Repositories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests