Board index FlightGear Support 3rd Party Repositories

FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby curt » Wed May 18, 2016 2:55 pm

A trademark of the fgmembers organization is endless arguing by their representatives on the flightgear forum about an endless variation of themes. This endless string of negative verbiage posted here is applauded and encouraged at their other forum. It serves their mission statement of recruiting people they sense have been disaffected here by leveraging and exploiting and prying on any gap through any line of reasoning they can find or dream up. Their words overflow most people's ability to read and digest them. There is a simpler way to understand what is going on: just watch their actions. For the last 2 years fgmembers has imported and modified (improved?) every bit of content they can get their hands on in order to build a competing repository that can be advertised as better and more complete and more current, but it is not vetted in the same way as the official flightgear core repositories. They have attempted to recruit content developers to contribute to their repository exclusively. FGmembers as an organization has cultivated an atmosphere of anger and disdain towards a list of specific flightgear contributors and towards this forum. And in return, their representatives (whether in an official capacity or self-appointed) have exported nothing but chaos and arguments back here to this forum. There is a small number of developers who are good citizens of both groups and contribute to both repositories--who just want everyone to get along ... the positive contributors should get noticed more than they are. Most of the positive contributors I know tend to be quiet and let their actions and work speak for themselves.
Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics
University of Minnesota
curt
Administrator
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Bomber » Wed May 18, 2016 2:56 pm

Thorsten... if you had any respect for me you'd not have said some of the things you have about me... or entered into any of the many topics I'd started and created havoc.

I've had the decency to stay out of your shuttle topic....

You can attempt to rewrite the past as much as you want....it might work on some... but I was there and know different
Last edited by Bomber on Wed May 18, 2016 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Bomber » Wed May 18, 2016 3:00 pm

bugman wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 2:51 pm:Simply use email filters to pack all the messages into a folder, skipping the inbox. Then selectively read what you wish to based on the subject line. Like this forum, it is best not to read everything.

Regards,
Edward


I suggest add some of that advise to the new header....

Now tell me again what you have against Fgmembers... as they're a development forum unlike this one which is now just a place where we point to a mailing list.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Bomber » Wed May 18, 2016 3:03 pm

For the last 2 years fgmembers has imported and modified (improved?) every bit of content they can get their hands on in order to build a competing repository that can be advertised as better and more complete and more current,


2 years..... doesn't time fly.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Thorsten » Wed May 18, 2016 3:06 pm

I've had the decency to stay out of your shuttle topic....


I understand the math of orbital mechanics can be scary :-)
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10231
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby bugman » Wed May 18, 2016 3:11 pm

Bomber wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 3:00 pm:Now tell me again what you have against Fgmembers... as they're a development forum unlike this one which is now just a place where we point to a mailing list.


Rather than repeat most in full, I'll point back in this thread to: viewtopic.php?f=85&t=29559&start=240. It's pretty simple, why does Israel not set up FGMEMBERS to have different categories:

  • FGAddon mirror with no development.
  • 3rd party hangar mirrors - one category for each - and no development.
  • Zero-barrier development repositories as new aircraft or forks of the above.
  • Encouraging new aircraft developers to contact the original aircraft authors, and help them upstream (in FGAddon or the 3rd party hangar), to hopefully form a development team around the original author. The upstream changes will then flow into the mirrors, and down into any forks.

This is very simple to change with the current design of FGMEMBERS. It would take me less than 2 hours to do ;) With this, there will be the ability to fully automate mirror synchronisation via scripts (e.g. hourly cron jobs to very quickly mirror the changes). This goes against Israel's goal of replacing the core content infrastructure, but it does significantly improve the goals of content distribution and zero-barrier development. So why not do this? All points of conflict and resentment will then be gone.

Regards,
Edward

Edit: Here is a hint - set up FGMEMBERS aircraft to have submodules inside submodules. Then there could be a master FGMEMBERS-AIRCRAFT with the submodules FGMEMBERS-FGADDON, FGMEMBERS-PAF, FGMEMBERS-FGUK, FGMEMBERS-DEVEL, etc.
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Lydiot » Wed May 18, 2016 3:34 pm

Does TNCM work now on TerraSync?
Lydiot
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby bugman » Wed May 18, 2016 3:44 pm

Lydiot, are you highlighting the fact that someone is submitting improvements to FGMEMBERS-TERRAGIT but refusing to submit them upstream? The Caribbean islands are a perfect example of what can be temporarily fixed in the WS 2.0 of the TerraScenery database.

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby wlbragg » Wed May 18, 2016 3:53 pm

bugman wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 3:11 pm:It's pretty simple, why does Israel not set up FGMEMBERS to have different categories:

  • FGAddon mirror with no development.
  • 3rd party hangar mirrors - one category for each - and no development.
  • Zero-barrier development repositories as new aircraft or forks of the above.
  • Encouraging new aircraft developers to contact the original aircraft authors, and help them upstream (in FGAddon or the 3rd party hangar), to hopefully form a development team around the original author. The upstream changes will then flow into the mirrors, and down into any forks.

This is very simple to change with the current design of FGMEMBERS. It would take me less than 2 hours to do ;) With this, there will be the ability to fully automate mirror synchronisation via scripts (e.g. hourly cron jobs to very quickly mirror the changes). This goes against Israel's goal of replacing the core content infrastructure, but it does significantly improve the goals of content distribution and zero-barrier development. So why not do this? All points of conflict and resentment will then be gone.

Regards,
Edward

Edit: Here is a hint - set up FGMEMBERS aircraft to have submodules inside submodules. Then there could be a master FGMEMBERS-AIRCRAFT with the submodules FGMEMBERS-FGADDON, FGMEMBERS-PAF, FGMEMBERS-FGUK, FGMEMBERS-DEVEL, etc.

:idea:
I challenge the fgmembers core to consider this, sounds like a very good idea!
Kansas(2-27-15)/Ohio/Midwest scenery development.
KEQA (2-27-15), 3AU, KRCP Airport Layout
User avatar
wlbragg
 
Posts: 4409
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:31 pm
Location: Kansas (Tornado Alley), USA
Callsign: WC2020
Version: next
OS: Win10/Debain/nVGT640

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Lydiot » Wed May 18, 2016 3:54 pm

bugman wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 3:44 pm:Lydiot, are you highlighting the fact that someone is submitting improvements to FGMEMBERS-TERRAGIT but refusing to submit them upstream? The Caribbean islands are a perfect example of what can be temporarily fixed in the WS 2.0 of the TerraScenery database.

Regards,
Edward


You didn't answer my question. Does TNCM work properly in Terrasync now?
Lydiot
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby bugman » Wed May 18, 2016 3:57 pm

It indirectly answered your question - it is still under water as the person who fixed it has not contributed it to the TerraScenery database (this requires an email to the mailing list).

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Thorsten » Wed May 18, 2016 4:02 pm

Thorsten... if you had any respect for me you'd not have said some of the things you have about me... or entered into any of the many topics I'd started and created havoc.

I've had the decency to stay out of your shuttle topic....


It's a strange world of yours in which decency is measured by not posting in a thread, and in which a mathematical argument is taken as a personal affront.

Do you actually know what you wish for? If the discussions would all shift into the FDM forum, you'd have many more people who like math and might disagree with you on one or the other count. It'd be me a dozen times over. You can't even bear one guy in your threads who knows fluid dynamics and other physics - imagine a dozen of them.

You used to be an FDM developer - nowadays all we get to see of you is bitter posts how this or that isn't as you like it, but they don't even make sense as a whole.

See

This forum has... Total members 6286


out of which two have expressed unhappiness with the structure here - that's 0.031 percent dissatisfaction with the forum management. Or 99.968% who seem happy enough not to bother. Any dictator could be proud of such approval rates.

It's just as meaningful as the original argument. Why do you even bother? Just to keep arguing? You don't actually seem to want any of the things you argue for.

Just... think about it.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10231
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby bugman » Wed May 18, 2016 4:12 pm

Thorsten, repeatedly hitting on the facts also does not help get to the bottom of the issues in this thread. Just think about it ;)

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Lydiot » Wed May 18, 2016 4:22 pm

I'll tell you what I see as a user:

I go flying. I turn on Terrasync. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Left it on by accident. Must have spawned over TNCM but forgot about it. Get back there three weeks later. Scenery updated via Terrasync so the runway is now below water. It's been like this since WS2.0 I think. So, what's my solution? It's to visit a separate webpage to download the old stuff, possibly merged with new stuff, I don't know, but definitely not Terrasync. Then manually copy that over so that I can use the airport again.

So, to me, what I see in this thread is a bunch of whining that FGMembers are stealing resources by a) marketing towards contributors to use FGMembers infrastructure, and b) that FGMembers then won't give back. Then how about you guys just take stuff back from 3rd party repos and implement improvements? Let me give you an example:

TNCM

Clearly it's a fairly popular airport. We've all seen pictures of it and it gets visits etc. If there is a fix out there, either on FGMembers or elsewhere, why is this not incorporated into Terrasync? To me - as a user, it's largely irrelevant whether you want to say there's a technical issue behind it, because you also say that there are no technical issues preventing improvements using the official infrastructure, or if you say the issue is manpower, because someone has provided the solution by offering the reversion back to something that works and you could possibly just have someone grab that and tweak Terrasync.... or?

Well, since that hasn't happened, why should I NOT use FGMembers or any other 3rd party source that has working scenery? Why should I not do that as a user? And as an extension of that very basic practical question; why then should I be bothered by your complaints? If you actually offered more right now the issue would be moot. If users saw that development was faster in the official infrastructure then why would they ever bother with 3rd parties at all?

So, again: What you need is not to whine about FGmembers, or even just attract developers, but to make sure that changes make their way into your infrastructure to be used by users. I mean, what argument can you possible have against a 3rd party repo for a user when TNCM still doesn't work?
Lydiot
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Lydiot » Wed May 18, 2016 4:25 pm

bugman wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 3:57 pm:It indirectly answered your question - it is still under water


You could have answered that directly, couldn't you?

bugman wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 3:57 pm: as the person who fixed it has not contributed it to the TerraScenery database (this requires an email to the mailing list).

Regards,
Edward


I believe the "fix" is installing old scenery. Or if it's actually fixed, I don't know. What I do know is that there's a bunch of you people here and you've spent a ton of energy complaining about FGMembers and not one of you lifted a finger to get TNCM fixed. If you want to convince users that the official FG is better, why not just fix it and make it better?

Supposedly there are "reviewers" that check submissions. Why didn't one of them just grab TNCM himself and fix it? It pops up regularly as a question ("Why is it under water?"). Why does the reviewer have to wait until someone submits a fix rather than just go get it if it's known to exist?
Lydiot
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to 3rd Party Repositories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest