Board index FlightGear Development Spaceflight

Vostok-1

Discussion about development and usage of spacecraft

Re: Vostok-1

Postby vitos » Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:39 pm

Thorsten wrote in Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:26 pm:To quote yourself: Question was "Will we do something together?". It wasn't: Will someone with C++ skills fix my problem? or Will to core developers do what I want them to do?. You claim something, it is proven wrong, you implicitly change to a different claim. Sorry, pick someone else to pull your rhethorical tricks.


Boy, with whom You are trying to argue with? To do something together means to do something together. No trying, not "Sorry pal, I had read source code and found out I can not do something with that", no promising, not "I'll see what I can do", but doing, real changes with real objective results.

To do something together means to do something together. No counseling, not "look there, it must be somewhere", no moderating, not "You had made that bad, fix it immediately" but collaborating, when one guy doing one part while other guy doing other part, really doing something objectively to make common result.

I had made something, You can take that model. That is my result. It flies on itself, I had flew round Earth on it dozen times. Now it's Your turn, not only You personally, turn of everyone else. If You want to do something together with me then make something with everything else to make it fly on full glory as result. Do not want? Want to make me to do everything alone instead, with models, with sceneries, with core and so called decorative "help" what makes other guys feels as wise teachers and leaders of some halfstupid dude from retarded country instead of making some work and producing something objectively? Know what people of free world tells in such cases? You can imagine that. So imagine.
Waste of time: too unprofitable for work, too exhausting for hobby.
User avatar
vitos
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:10 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Callsign: vitos
IRC name: vitos
Version: 3.4
OS: Debian

Re: Vostok-1

Postby Hooray » Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:19 pm

vitos, I saw your postings yesterday and I was also going to post something along the lines of what Thorsten posted now, so I absolutely agree with him.

I really think the vostok-1 is a great model and find the idea of simulating space flight in FG very appealing and interesting.

On the other hand, your way and approach of addressing your needs and dealing with the FG community is just completely unsuitable to accomplish anything at all.

There have been other ambitious projects, such as the bombable addon or the local weather project.
Both of which were solely implemented by a single person in each case (flug and Thorsten respectively).

Not only implemented by a single person, but also by people who first of all had to learn Nasal programming, too.
And by people who were rather new to the FG community, too.

Now, according to your profile, you have been a member of this forum for almost 3 years now, so you are certainly not "new" or a "rookie" anymore, you should meanwhile know how FlightGear development generally works.

Generally, there is NOTHING at all planned, coordinated or scheduled - there are no orchestrated efforts to implement features or ideas. Instead, if some features make it into a release, that usually means that a single developer/contributor cared enough and spent all the time required to implement it, usually without any significant effort from fellow contributors.

This doesn't just apply to base package contributors, but also to core developers - you get to see a number of core developers who would quite obviously like to get some more support from fellow core developers, because they are doing large-scale architectural work,some of which is really important for FlightGear and has been long overdue.

For example, you could see this when FlightGear switched from PLIB's scene graph to OSG, which was largely tackled by a single core developer too, without much support from fellow core developers - in fact, quite the opposite was the case, most fellow core developers didn't appreciate the degree of regressions introduced by that move initially.

The sames goes for many other ambitious FG related efforts, important ones and not so important ones. You gotta prioritize.

Like I said before, FlightGear development isn't planned at all, it's simply "happening" - yes, that can at times be frustrating and pretty inefficient, too.

But on the other hand, this is exactly how FlightGear managed to sustain its growth for over 10 years now. The key thing to keep in mind here is that FlightGear developers are truly motivated by joy, they obviously enjoy doing what they are doing, because there's nobody telling them to do something particular.

Once you start removing this joy from collaborating and contributing to FG, people are truly unlikely to be interested in working together with you. After all, this is a spare time project for almost everybody.

You seem to expect people to like your idea and immediately jump onto your bandwagon just to drop everything else they were working on. This simply doesn't happen, and it hopefully never will happen. And I don't think it ever happened at all in FlightGear history. You gotta fight for your own ideas and you gotta make your case convincingly, if you don't stay around to defend your features and your code, they will almost certainly be removed at some later point.

Also, I fully share Thorsen's view regarding your technical "issues", I really find many (if not even most!) of your points and conclusions very wrong and quite obviously very uninformed, too. Okay, I am saying this as someone who can read and understand the underlying C++ source code, but also as someone who can simply start up FlightGear and simply start experimenting. Exactly, what Thorsten suggested and advised you to do.

I think you could and should almost certainly settle for a compromise approach, where you explore what's possible now and what isn't. Quite possibly using Nasal scripting and by making creative use of other FlightGear features.

I don't want to repeat myself here, but unfortunately you would be being very ignorant if you were not to accept that many things you are asking for are already possible RIGHT NOW, sometimes they require unorthodox workarounds,sometimes they may even be pretty ugly.

Just look at Thorsen's local weather system or flug's bombable addon, both were initially prototyped FULLY in Nasal space, and both had/have to number quite a number of work arounds due to FG never having been designed with those features in mind.

Once you come up with a nice proof of concept, it would be easy to extend it further and see if/how FG could be improved - local weather and bombable are exactly doing this now: they are shaping FlightGear core development, by being compelling - and not by being frustrated, discouraged by FlightGear or by being ignorant of its capabilities.

Also, I have never seen Thorsten or flug being a pain in the ass when talking to the community, maybe because they simply know that it's unlikely to accomplish anything?

Really, you can see what's possible now, even for just a single person, just by looking at bombable and local weather - start using the wiki, document your ideas and plans, and document your EXPERIMENTS - see how far you can get.

Finally, you are in the lucky position that a number of people have explicitly expressed an interest to contribute to your project, Thorsten and flug on the other hand didn't get any major help at all before they started their own projects.

Being personally interested in this aspect of FlightGear, I would personally find it very unfortunate if you couldn't accomplish anything just because of your repeated tirades here and on the devel mailing lists. The time you spend doing this, would be better spent learning Nasal scripting in my opinion. It's really not rocket science at all, even if you have never done any programming before. And there are enough people here who can lend a helping hand, too.

The truth is, I wanted to tell you this long ago, but after having read all related discussions recently, I came to the conclusion that'd be a waste of my time to even start talking to you, because you -honestly spoken- seem to have made up your mind already, and you don't seem to be able to even consider different perspectives at all.
Because of the attitude you kept communicating here, I didn't want to respond to this anymore: I am contributing here to the foum because I usually enjoy doing so, but talking to you simply doesn't seem like much of a joy anymore recently, in fact you have become a piece of work.

I am being so blunt and honest here, not to offend you - but rather to advise you to reconsider your attitude, there's a lot to be gained for you, but also for FlightGear if you manage to pursue your idea without having continuous flame wars, but just using the route suggested above.

Sorry, but after having read all of these vostok-1 threads recently, my impression is that it's a great idea that is quite possible in FG, even with the current architecture, but it's apparently the wrong person having this great idea?

Finally, I am not interested in participating in flame wars, I am convinced that we can spend our time more constructively, I am just saying this so that you know that I am not going to respond to this thread anymore if that's your interest, same goes for PMs.
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: 11309
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: Vostok-1

Postby vitos » Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:24 pm

Hooray wrote in Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:19 pm:vitos, I saw your postings yesterday and I was also going to post something along the lines of what Thorsten posted now, so I absolutely agree with him.


BTW, It's pity You had asked man to learn, Nasal for example, without getting in what that man had done previously, particularly to find out what Nasal code of "MiG-15" is nearly most bigger one of all comparable ones and Nasal code of "Vostok-1" is not so small too.

To be short, I do not care how You are placing things here, dozens types of attempts is possible and it's not needed to know all of that in most of cases. I know for sure what it can be made only one way, I can do it that way only, so if it's possible to You to make it that way then OK, we are working together. If not then, again, OK, we do not work together. That's all.
Waste of time: too unprofitable for work, too exhausting for hobby.
User avatar
vitos
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:10 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Callsign: vitos
IRC name: vitos
Version: 3.4
OS: Debian

Re: Vostok-1

Postby i4dnf » Sat Oct 22, 2011 3:49 pm

Vitos, may I ask WHAT ARE YOU EVEN DOING HERE?
well besides trolling that is.
You don't offer support anymore to any of your projects, you bash anyone that even dares to think about lending you a hand, you keep on prophesying the demise of this project.

If you don't intend to do anything constructive, please have at least the decency of removing yourself from these forums, and go play in other sandboxes...
i4dnf
Retired
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:17 am
Location: LRBS
Callsign: YR-I4D
Version: GIT
OS: Gentoo Linux ~amd64

Re: Vostok-1

Postby vitos » Sat Oct 22, 2011 4:03 pm

i4dnf wrote in Sat Oct 22, 2011 3:49 pm:Vitos, may I ask WHAT ARE YOU EVEN DOING HERE?


I had answered on that question already. I am here answering questions about why that can not be continued any more, to make it clear and to avoid some doubts about that. I want people to know what something in life, very important somehing, can not be done alone and for own personal fun only, to know it for sure. That's all I can do for common good here.

i4dnf wrote in Sat Oct 22, 2011 3:49 pm:you bash anyone that even dares to think about lending you a hand


To lend a hand means to do something objectively. Not to tell, to do.
Waste of time: too unprofitable for work, too exhausting for hobby.
User avatar
vitos
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:10 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Callsign: vitos
IRC name: vitos
Version: 3.4
OS: Debian

Re: Vostok-1

Postby Hooray » Sat Oct 22, 2011 4:14 pm

vitos wrote:BTW, It's pity You had asked man to learn, Nasal for example, without getting in what that man had done previously, particularly to find out what Nasal code of "MiG-15" is nearly most bigger one of all comparable ones and Nasal code of "Vostok-1" is not so small too.


actually, it's no "pity" at all, it's just logical: i.e. to quote yourself:

vitos wrote:Are You one who really believe what guy who even do not know any programming language can help in solving comparable hardcore task of fixing something in deeps of many thousands of thousands of code long project?


So, now you implied that you knew Nasal and that you are able to script systems, right?

Knowing Nasal is a definite advantage, but even if you know Nasal you'll surely acknowledge that scripting a scenery-specific system is somewhat different from scripting aircraft-specific stuff.

There's lots to be learnt even for someone who can already use Nasal successfully. You are in the lucky position that you apparently know Nasal already, thus it will be much easier for you to apply this knowledge and create new systems in Nasal space.

Some "issues" in the core source code must not necessarily be addressed in C++ space right away, there are compromises possible. Both, the local weather system AND the bombable addon show in a very impressive fashion that this is the most promising pathway.

Someone already familiar with Nasal, also has the added advantage that Nasal is syntactically close enough to C and C++, so that it becomes a real option to look into the underlying C++ source code and see for yourself where the problems are and how things are working under the hood.

I don't appreciate the way you are talking to me and other, but I will tell you a little secret though, hopefully to help you:

When I spend more than 2-3 minutes responding to question or a thread in the forum, that's usually a strong indicator that I am interested in that discussion, either because I like the ideas discussed there, or because I'd like to make a point.

Now, replying to you took me about 10 minutes. This is to say that I am interested in your suggested idea (i.e. space flight in FG), but simply disagree with the way you are trying to proceed here, that's the point I am trying to make.

Right now, my impression really is, that I am the one defending your idea, against you. Bottom line being: you are doing more harm than good right now. Your idea is very good, it is obvious that many people like it, and some people would even like to contribute to this (as illustrated by Thorsten's quoting). What you are doing now is a disservice unfortunately.

Really, the truth is, the people you are most interested in working with (according to your own words), are the ones who are able to bring changes to FlightGear, i.e. to the underlying source code. I think we actually agree that you are looking for technically-inclined folks who are able to program in C++ and who are able to modify the underlying C++ source code in FlightGear.

I think, it would even be fair to say that you are looking for these folks much more than you may be aware of, I noticed this in a number of completely unrelated threads, where you brought up your vostok-1 project only to then start your tirades again...

Unfortunately, the facts are against you: the people you are looking for are the ones least unlikely to actually respond well to the form of communications you are engaging in here. Programmers are people who appreciate facts-based and efficient communications, not emotional tirades. Anything else is usually perceived as a waste of time.

You know, there's only a very limited, a finite, amount of time each of us can spend contributing to FG each day, each week, each month and each year.

I can obviously only speak for myself now, but whenever I open the forum, I am doing this because I am trying to help others, and because I enjoy talking about certain things.

On the other hand, I don't like having to read (or even engage in) lengthy discussions only to be able to help somebody. I am looking for questions, which are down to the point. Topics that seem "fun". I am simply not inclined to engage in competitions of eloquence, frankly because my impression is that it's not helpful to get things done.

So, personally, I am looking for coding-related discussions, because I find them interesting and stimulating. Thus, I'd rather spend one helping 10 people with coding issues, than spending even just a single minute in offtopic crusades, such as your's.

That means, I don't enjoy participating in this discussion at all, I'd rather help people having questions on Nasal, C or C++ or FlightGear in general. Usually, I would simply ignore threads like your's and simply spend my time somewhere else.
On the other hand, I like your idea, and I do see potential for FlightGear - I just think that your idea's advocate is being extremely inapt of making his case. Yes, that would be you - sorry.

Here's another insight I can provide:

When browsing the forum, my mind works in a rather simple (yet efficient) manner: I am looking for postings of a certain nature, either by category or by keyword. In other words, I must be interested in them. It's a form of filtering.

More and more often, I specifically look out for postings by certain people, such as flug, Thorsten, AndersG, skyop and some others.

This is because I find their postings usually very interesting from a technical perspective, but also because they have an exceptional "signal to noise" ratio, i.e. there isn't much noise created at all. Unfortunately, you don't qualify at all currently.

You can only have a real influence if you manage to maintain a well-balanced signal to noise ratio. Obviously, major contributions allow you to create more noise without being ignored immediately.

Finally, the obvious truth is that my selective approach to filtering the forum and to responding only to certain topics, isn't all that uncommon.

You can see that for yourself just by looking at the responses people like flug or Thorsten and some others are getting here. Even though this is a forum (and not the devel mailing list!) these guys somehow manage to get high quality responses from fellow programmers and even FlightGear core developers.

You even get to see FlightGear core developers responding to threads here, who are otherwise pretty much unavailable because they are too busy to show up at all.

Yes, that's exactly the type of people you said you are interested in making your case to.

Your situation isn't novel or unprecented at all, there are other cool ideas and "concepts" (e.g. target4today), but it's implementation that counts, open source is evolution, and thus, darwinism at its best: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ideas+are+a+dime+a+dozen
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: 11309
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: Vostok-1

Postby vitos » Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:01 pm

I assume, with sort of respect, what You are real pro in fast typing.

Hooray wrote in Sat Oct 22, 2011 4:14 pm:So, now you implied that you knew Nasal and that you are able to script systems, right?


You had missed what conversation was about proposition of help from other guy who really do not know any programming language. It seems You did not read what I had wrote.

I could do that "SpaceGear" alone, on C level, which I know too for sure. I could find other guys who could help, outside of that community. Simply do not see the reason to do so. Again, that's task for company of friends, not for one self amusing man. It's all about the collaboration. No collaboration here means no SpaceGear. No collaboration on Earth means no man on Mars.

I did it not for "space". Who needs simulated space anyway? I had made it to inspire common work and friendship by it. Not talking, work. I had thought what rocket in aircraft sim could be inspiring miracle. Man, what else do You need to be inspired? It's the huge multistage full detailed rocket, spacecraft with all panels and controls, it can fly full orbit round Earth from liftoff to landing. It's hardcore, I bet You could not made that flight. It's for free totally, it's absolutely free in all means, it's gift for mankind. And there's a lot of nice things what could be added still, only if You will make steps forward too. Damn, is there something what is really needed to be said in addition? Yes?

On the other hand I had wanted to check why it's 50 years since first manned space flight and we are not on Mars yet. Now I know it for sure and even have proof. We, You and me, guys, we are pretty model of whole mankind society in that means. Monkey with human brains will not be on Mars because there is no bananas to be taken away on Mars, no things to own, no things to do alone. Until man is monkey instead of friend, until man make damn social darwinism instead of friendship, man will be here, in that blue and white shaped jail. Hope You had got that simple idea.

Ah, and I had wanted to make free for all spaceflight by only way what is accessible for me, of course. I had wanted it, for me and anybody else, I had made it. Right to the point where lone path ends. And it's not my problem what there is no one who could went further path with me. To be honest, I do not care. I had made my part honestly, I had made my proposition of friendship with gift, I am good. Maybe my gift is not the best. My gift is for sure enough for beginning of friendship in normal means and it's not needed to me to do any more. If someone thinks what I should do more then that someone should do more by own self at first.
Last edited by vitos on Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Waste of time: too unprofitable for work, too exhausting for hobby.
User avatar
vitos
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:10 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Callsign: vitos
IRC name: vitos
Version: 3.4
OS: Debian

Re: Vostok-1

Postby Hooray » Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:09 pm

vitos, I probably belong to the camp of people that you are trying to appeal to, i.e. I am interested in your project, and more generally the aspect of simulating space flight in FG, I do know C++, I am able to build FG from sources, I know how to create patches and I also usually do know my way around the FG code base.

The thing is however, that your whole approach of making your case is flawed and deemed to cause confusion among fellow contributors.
There's nothing to be gained at all by being overly negative and bitching around or by contiuous thread hijacking or forum trolling.

All of us have come here because we share a certain passion for FlightGear, but also a passion for our own projects and personal interests. Like you do obviously.

Now, if you want to show that you are serious about your project, you should concentrate on what's possible right now, rather than concentrating on all those things that aren't possible.
This is much harder to do than vice versa!

The local weather project, but also the bombable addon, can serve as excellent role models here, both projects manage to work around existing FG limitations, while still highlighting how FlightGear would need to be modified in order to become better usable for a certain use case. The wiki is an excellent tool here.

Modeling certain aspects of space flight in FlightGear isn't all that far fetched from, there are many shared requirements, some others would even be generally useful and improve FG, such as e.g. fixing FG's internal atmosphere model, something that almost certainly would also be helpful for the local weather project.

You are more likely to accomplish your goals by seeing things from a wider perspective.

So, I'd really suggest to concentrate on common requirements, things that may make FlightGear better in general, rather than just for a specific use case, such as simulating space flight:

When you do a mailing list search, you'll actually see that there have been LOTS of talks in the past about coming up with a better scenery engine, and providing a way to eventually replace the existing engine completely.

Some of these postings were written by Curtis Olson or Tim Moore, i.e. major fgfs "celebraties" Tim Moore even started collecting ideas using the wiki apparently.

Curt himself mentioned being supportive of the idea to provide an interface, similar to the existing FDM interface, so that an alternate scenery engine could eventually be developed in parallel with the existing engine, in a "plug and play" fashion. All of this can be easily found doing a simple mailing list search.

According to fredb's youtube channel and his postings here, FredB is another fgfs core developer who is quite interested in this and currently working on this, too.

So you have a number of FG core developers who have expressed an interest in improving and possibly replacing the existing scenery engine eventually. Translation: this is the shared and common requirement! :-)
Don't think in too simple and narrow-minded terms like "space flight", think broader!

A number of other C++ developers have recently expressed an interest in revamping the FG scenery engine and exchanged some ideas about this (notably psadro_gm and Zan).

And then there are the folks who are obviously interested in splace flight particularly and who'd also expressed offers to contribute to your project.

So, I really don't see where your problem is. There are enough skilled people interested in this aspect of FG, yet you keep on bashing everything scenery related.

It would be better to collect all ideas and requirements and see what the common requirements REALLY are. So that things can hopefully be prioritized.

Disabling the existing scenery engine shouldn't be difficult at all. I am pretty sure that it would take only a single mail to the developers and ask them how they'd go about quickly and easily disabling terrain rendering in FlightGear because you are interested in exploring alternative engines.

Given that Curt, Tim, Fred and some others have expressed an interest in this alreadyin the past, it should be a nobrainer actually.

Maybe, your whole problem is that you expect someone to do all the work for you?

Obviously, you should be able to build FG from sources, knowing some C or C++ can be helpful sure.

But apart from that, it shouldn't be too difficult to patch FG and make it stop loading tiles, at all. After all, it's not really "new features", it's about disabling existing code...

You said already that you know Nasal and C, I don't know if you are a Linux user and able to build FG from sources, but you should seriously consider looking into this if you are serious about your idea.

I think you need to start thinking outside the box: In FlightGear, one of the easiest way not to render any terrain is simply REMOVING the corresponding scenery tiles, or using a custom/empty scenery setup. That should make quite a difference already, simply because of the reduced scenery complexity. Have you actually tried this already?

In other words, you'd end up with a sphere rendered with just water, without the tile manager loading any terrain at all. That'd be the first and simplest step to "disable scenery" in FG to continue with your experiments. More options can be explored by looking into $FG_SRC/Scenery, i.e.: http://gitorious.org/fg/flightgear/blob ... ilemgr.cxx

But really, I wouldn't even be surprised if somebody responded with a patch to disable the existing scenery engine once you manage to make your case in a civilized fashion*.

Yet, you somehow don't seem to listen to anybody beside yourself. So, just to quote someone you'll hopefully listen to:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=12005&start=15#p124427
vitos wrote:You simply want to bite some too big piece at once. It's useless to make big list of tasks until we can not solve one vital task what blocks solving of any next problem in that list entirely.


Almost half a year ago, Thorsten came up with some neat workarounds and suggested specific methods to deal with FG's existing limitations while still pursuing your experiments:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=12005&start=30#p125050
Thorsten wrote:I don't think we need any new engine - from a Celestia perspective, Earth is just a textured sphere with a normalmap and a reflection shader - nothing we couldn't render and place into the scenery even from nasal. So I'd basically work on just loading a new, very large model, because that's all we need, and ask to deactivate all features in the skydome which assume you're close to surface - with the atmospheric scattering, I don't think there are any.

Celestia in addition has 'virtual textures' to display the truly hires textures - but again, you can chop a model of a sphere into bits and just load the ones you see from a simple Nasal script - so assuming you can use the hires Celestia Earth textures, it doesn't even require any modification to the core to get an Earth model in - all can be done from Nasal.

I haven't tried anything yet, but I'm fairly certain the problem is much simpler than we thought.

And he even provided more good tips: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=12005&start=30#p125083

You mentioned:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=12005&start=30#p125079
vitos wrote:There is problems what current terrain engine matter of. You need to switch it off somehow completely to avoid lags on high altitudes anyway. I do not even know if it's possible, engine can be linked to other code in many different places what could need some reactions of it or so.


For a very long time, FlightGear used to support the "draw-otw" property, which disabled "out of the window" rendering completely. I previously illustrated how terrain rendering itself could be disabled simply by removing the corresponding scenery tiles, or by preventing them from being loaded.

Having an option to generally disable terrain rendering might be useful for a whole number of reasons, so I don't think that introducing a corresponding optional property would be a problem at all.

There are many people interested in this aspect of FG, some of whom are even currently working on FlightGear scenery (TerraGear): viewtopic.php?f=6&t=12005&start=45#p137855


So, you got some good feedback already. The question remains if/how you are going to use this to its best potential?


*: The following SimGear patch will disable terrain rendering in a very blunt fashion, by rendering ocean tiles instead, I am getting between 100-150 fps at 500.000 ft altitude, the same could be achieved by using a property, so that things can be toggled on demand:
Code: Select all
diff --git a/simgear/scene/tgdb/ReaderWriterSTG.cxx b/simgear/scene/tgdb/ReaderWriterSTG.cxx
index f79638b..20ebb41 100644
--- a/simgear/scene/tgdb/ReaderWriterSTG.cxx
+++ b/simgear/scene/tgdb/ReaderWriterSTG.cxx
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ osgDB::ReaderWriter::ReadResult
 ReaderWriterSTG::readNode(const std::string& fileName,
                           const osgDB::ReaderWriter::Options* options) const
 {
-    osg::Node* result = TileEntry::loadTileByFileName(fileName, options);
+    osg::Node* result = TileEntry::loadTileByFileName(fileName, options, false);
     // For debugging race conditions
 #ifdef SLOW_PAGER
     sleep(5);
diff --git a/simgear/scene/tgdb/TileEntry.cxx b/simgear/scene/tgdb/TileEntry.cxx
index 6c7c54c..f901a0d 100644
--- a/simgear/scene/tgdb/TileEntry.cxx
+++ b/simgear/scene/tgdb/TileEntry.cxx
@@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ struct Object {
 
 osg::Node*
 TileEntry::loadTileByFileName(const string& fileName,
-                              const osgDB::ReaderWriter::Options* options)
+                              const osgDB::ReaderWriter::Options* options, const bool load_tiles)
 {
     std::string index_str = osgDB::getNameLessExtension(fileName);
     index_str = osgDB::getSimpleFileName(index_str);
@@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ TileEntry::loadTileByFileName(const string& fileName,
     // obj_load() will generate ground lighting for us ...
     osg::Group* new_tile = new osg::Group;
 
-    if (found_tile_base) {
+    if (found_tile_base && load_tiles) {
         // load tile if found ...
         opt->setCalcLights(true);
         obj_load( object_base.str(), new_tile, true, opt.get());
diff --git a/simgear/scene/tgdb/TileEntry.hxx b/simgear/scene/tgdb/TileEntry.hxx
index 7aec5d1..e07042f 100644
--- a/simgear/scene/tgdb/TileEntry.hxx
+++ b/simgear/scene/tgdb/TileEntry.hxx
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ public:
      * Transition to OSG database pager
      */
     static osg::Node* loadTileByFileName(const std::string& index_str,
-                                         const osgDB::ReaderWriter::Options*);
+                                         const osgDB::ReaderWriter::Options*, const bool load_tiles=true);
     /**
      * Return true if the tile entry is loaded, otherwise return false
      * indicating that the loading thread is still working on this.
Last edited by Hooray on Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 11309
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: Vostok-1

Postby vitos » Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:29 pm

Hooray wrote in Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:09 pm:Now, if you want to show that you are serious about your project, you should concentrate on what's possible right now, rather than concentrating on all those things that aren't possible.


I had already concluded what is needed, had posted my requests to devel list and forums long ago. If it was some movement here then those tasks could be solved already.

Hooray wrote in Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:09 pm:When you do a mailing list search, you'll actually see that there have been LOTS of talks in the past about coming up with a better scenery engine, and providing a way to eventually replace the existing engine completely.


Yes, talks. Not deeds, talks. There is a lot of "expressed interests" but no real changes.

Hooray wrote in Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:09 pm:So, I really don't see where your problem is. There are enough skilled people interested in this aspect of FG, yet you keep on bashing everything scenery related.


Problem is they are interested more in talking.

Hooray wrote in Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:09 pm:Maybe, your whole problem is that you expect someone to do all the work for you?


I expect others do their work instead of me. I had made craft, complicated in all means BTW, and do not see the reason why I should need to do whole simulator alone in addition.

Hooray wrote in Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:09 pm:The following SimGear patch will disable terrain rendering in a very blunt fashion, by rendering ocean tiles instead


I had fps drops and dropouts without land tiles, above ocean. And very often loading of other craft in multiplayer had leaded to dropout too, it's very unfunny in the middle of hour and the half long flight.

It's all talking only. Nothing had really changed in FG in that means half of the year long from April when "Vostok" had been introduced.
Last edited by vitos on Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Waste of time: too unprofitable for work, too exhausting for hobby.
User avatar
vitos
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:10 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Callsign: vitos
IRC name: vitos
Version: 3.4
OS: Debian

Re: Vostok-1

Postby Hooray » Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:36 pm

vitos, by all means: try to understand what we told you, and just give the patch a try ...
I don't really understand why you are bringing up completely unrelated issues such as multiplayer: let's try to walk before you run, okay?
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: 11309
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: Vostok-1

Postby vitos » Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:49 pm

Hooray wrote in Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:36 pm:vitos, by all means: try to understand what we told you, and just give the patch a try ...


I already had removed whole project from my disk and do not have intent to put it back again before some real changes will be made in it by other guys. I had made "Vostok" as turnkey, with whole documentation and so on, and await somehow similar approach. I foresee situations in what things what I think needed would work at my computer only, pretty clear, and I do not want it.

Hooray wrote in Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:36 pm:I don't really understand why you are bringing up completely unrelated issues such as multiplayer: let's try to walk before you run, okay?


Well, let's look on it from my perspective. It's gotta work well on any regime of flight, on every altitude and every speed, in multiplayer too. It means it gotta switch off everything automatically on some speed/altitude. That what is needed. It's possible to make local fixes to make it fly, yes. But to tell any new user to put that patch, such patch, other patch, it's too much for me. Actually right now "Vostok" would not fly because of some common changes, someone had changed significant property name I suppose. So what, me need to fix something because of someone else who do not added something to make it all work better? No way.

Again. I had made my real changes. Now I want real changes from others. I want some steps forward to me, as steps I had made forward to others. I do not want some consultation on further steps what I could make forward to others. No my additional steps, I will not change that. No my patching. Your patching. You will change that if You want to work with me. You will make that steps. My step, Your step. That's the way, and it's only way.
Last edited by vitos on Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Waste of time: too unprofitable for work, too exhausting for hobby.
User avatar
vitos
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:10 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Callsign: vitos
IRC name: vitos
Version: 3.4
OS: Debian

Re: Vostok-1

Postby HHS » Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:09 pm

vitos wrote in Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:49 pm:
Again. I had made my real changes. Now I want real changes from others. I want some steps forward to me, as steps I had made forward to others. I do not want some consultation on steps what I could make forward to others. No my patching. Your patching. My step, Your step. That's the way, and it's only way.


Wow- what a egoist! :roll:

Sorry, but you are wrong. That's not the way this or every other project in this galaxy is working!
If you don't understand this- Go ahead!
Up, up and away
User avatar
HHS
Retired
 
Posts: 3624
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:09 am
Version: GIT

Re: Vostok-1

Postby vitos » Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:11 pm

You may call me as You want, I will not change my mind. You may tell everything, I will not change my mind. Billions of people could march here to tell I am wrong, I will not change my mind. I had made my part. You have no possibility to push me to do more. Do or not do, it's up to You. It's Your turn, not mine.
Waste of time: too unprofitable for work, too exhausting for hobby.
User avatar
vitos
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:10 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Callsign: vitos
IRC name: vitos
Version: 3.4
OS: Debian

Re: Vostok-1

Postby HHS » Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:43 pm

You may change your mind or you may not- but you can't force other people to make things for you!

Again: you can't force other people to make things for you!

This is a FREE and OPENSource project!

No one has forced you to create the Vostok-1, so you can't force other people to make things for you!

This is what all people here said- and it can't be only the language barrier, that you don't understand this!
Up, up and away
User avatar
HHS
Retired
 
Posts: 3624
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:09 am
Version: GIT

Re: Vostok-1

Postby vitos » Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:51 pm

HHS wrote in Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:43 pm:Again: you can't force other people to make things for you!


Why You are thinking what I am trying to do so? I already had said what I do not care about common result because had made my contribution entirely and simply can not add more in current situation.

I can say it again. To make "Vostok" better is unreasonable task while future of spaceflight in common project is unclear. To make that future clear alone is unsolvable task, it's not too demanding only, there's a lot of guys who can break it completely by some minor changes what's better for other, more common, projects. To make that future bright is task what can be solved only together, as friends. I had started all that for friendship. I had made my best to make others interested in making future bright together and become friends. If that's not enough then OK. I can not do better anyway.

I had named and listed what's needed, had said why without that I will not add something more, had said why I can not do that myself. That's all. It's not attempt to push You to do something. If You are caring then You are understanding what that is needed really, understanding why I can not do that, I would not need to tell it to You. If You don't then I would not need to tell it to You too, that would be unreasonable simply. So actually it's unreasonable to tell in both cases. I had wrote that only to have some historical mark as "That was needed, that was not granted". And to make it clear for everyone of course.
Waste of time: too unprofitable for work, too exhausting for hobby.
User avatar
vitos
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:10 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Callsign: vitos
IRC name: vitos
Version: 3.4
OS: Debian

PreviousNext

Return to Spaceflight

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest