Board index FlightGear Development Spaceflight

Vostok-1

Discussion about development and usage of spacecraft

Re: Vostok-1

Postby durk » Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:03 am

vitos wrote in 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.


Because you said so yourself:

vitos wrote: 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.
durk
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:01 pm
Location: Ghent, Belgium
Callsign: PH-DRK
Version: git
OS: linux

Re: Vostok-1

Postby EigerSA » Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:33 am

Although I'm very new around here, I've followed this thread with quite a bit of interest, because a) the space flight part I find fascinating and b) because there's obviously a clash here between personalities and language.

I think what Vitos is trying to say here is that he's gone as far as he can with the skills and time he has at his disposal. He's provided the models and necessary scripts to get his project off the ground (yes, intentional pun) but has now hit a problem - being the the way he feels flightgear manages scenery. Basically I think he's looking for someone to step up and help with the next step, and not just lecture him as too what he should be doing or what he can or can't do, but too rather be an active participant as opposed to an armchair coder. It can be quite disheartening to propose a project that while every nods their heads and says "yes that's a great idea" and yet no-one steps forward to get their hands dirty.

Maybe because english is not Vitos's native language, he's coming across quite differently than I'm sure he intends.

From the other point of view, I also think Vitos should also take a deep breath and consider what's been put forward. Hooray in particular has been pretty level headed and even made an attempt in this thread to assist with a patch; which to me means shows that although there's disagreement on the forward for "SpaceGear" there is at least some interest at all!

Again I'm a complete newbie to FlightGear, but I'm a huge believer in open source and communal projects but I also understand that these types of projects by their very nature attract people who may not agree with each other all the time, but I think that since this thread is now at 17 pages is proof there is interest! Whether you continue with this or not (and that would be a tragedy!) I will keep playing and understanding with Vostok-1 until a flight to the moon is a reality

:D
EigerSA
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: Durban, South Africa
Callsign: EigerSA
OS: Vista

Re: Vostok-1

Postby Alant » Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:40 am

How about making a submarine simulator - The JSBSim and Flightgear core code should cope with that.

Then complain that the scenery is bad..........

Alan :)
Alant
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:58 am
Location: Portugal
Callsign: Tarnish99
Version: from Git
OS: Windows 10

Re: Vostok-1

Postby vitos » Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:44 am

durk wrote in Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:03 am:Because you said so yourself:


I had said that the way and it's the way. Walk it or not is up to You, and I do not care what You will choose.
Last edited by vitos on Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:40 am, 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 vitos » Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:48 am

EigerSA wrote in Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:33 am:looking for someone to step up and help with the next step, and not just lecture him as too what he should be doing or what he can or can't do, but too rather be an active participant as opposed to an armchair coder


Yes, You are quite right. Small correction, "active participant as opposed to an armchair forum writer".

EigerSA wrote in Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:33 am: I think that since this thread is now at 17 pages is proof there is interest!


Well, I do not think so. As I know Open Source and that community there is interest to throw problem off instead of participating in solving of it as most matter of discussion. Interest of most part of communicators is to find a path to push me to do that SpaceGear alone or to leave as "guy who had started wrong project" and "community offender", because no one wants to do anything instead of own projects and no one wants to feel sorry about someone else project stopping. To write short message on forum is not so hard to do, especially when it's on Your native language. It's sort of useful leadership ability learning, which is need very when no one wants to even beat one finger by another finger for others. And it's kinda fun, when it's not about wasting of half of year of Your everyday work of course. That's why communication was not ended yet.
Last edited by vitos on Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:51 am, edited 29 times 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 vitos » Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:59 am

Alant wrote in Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:40 am:How about making a submarine simulator


I suppose it will be done it time.

Alant wrote in Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:40 am:Then complain


If You want to help then help. If not then why You had wrote that? To feel as some guru? At least I had wrote some working on itself craft, really big one, and in normal community that deed would provoke some positive changes on itself. It was not because that community is not normal, so I am acting a bit still to help people to see it clear. What You had done to call proposition of common work "complain"? Don't You feel sorry a bit about what You had wrote? Well, I suppose no.

How about a making something good for others, for me particularly? Then to look if it changes anything, to look on results. I had made it. Now You can try to make a similar deed to check if it's up to my personality or good deeds really leads to offenses only in that so called Open Source community.
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 MyName » Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:56 am

Language barrier... :/
MyName
 
Posts: 660
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:57 am

Re: Vostok-1

Postby vitos » Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:59 am

MyName wrote in Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:56 am:Language barrier... :/


Different interests what can not be compromised.

Me want we to do something together which means others to do something of course.

Others do not want to do something for me which means they do not want to do something together.

I gotta admit what that is fantastically interesting. Group of people who do not want to work with each other, do not like each other, do not have any profit, free to leave in any moment, still produces something together...Fantastic, Lem's "Eden". What psychological and real life problems, wrong own beliefs, could force people to participate in that perversion? How it comes big enough to make whole community? Could that type of remote loneliness become normal mode of whole mankind life? Very, very curiously...And suppose I already have most of answers.
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 Thorsten » Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:03 pm

I think I understand now what is going on. vitos is not an egoist, in fact, far from it. He can be best understand in radically different terms - as a prophet of Spacegear.

He has a vision (Spacegear), a chosen people (the Flightgear community) and a mission (to let the chosen people share end embrace the vision), and he even has a symbol to rally around (the Vostok-1 model).

If this idea seems odd, consider how he talks about the model:

I had thought what rocket in aircraft sim could be inspiring miracle.


He isn't interested in doing Spacegear on his own, because this isn't his mission. Thus, any guidance, ideas how to proceed and such like doesn't do. He isn't interested in finding help from outside the community, or in finding help from people at the edge of the community, because that's not the chosen people:

I could find other guys who could help, outside of that community. Simply do not see the reason to do so.


Now, he brought his vision to the people, and instead of embracing it, they remained indifferent. We just need to turn to The Book to read up what prophets do next: They start to talk about the looming doomsday. So, precisely according to script, vitos started talking about the demise of Flightgear after the community did not start on Spacegear. The reasoning goes like this - they might be shortsighted enough not to see my vision on their own, but if they're so shortsighted that they don't even see it after I tell them, then they can't get anything right.

From this perspective, we can now understand why logical arguments and facts as presented by Stuart and others do not convince him that there is no imminent demise of Flightgear: Truth obtained by revelation feels so compelling and bright that truth established by a chain of reasoning pales in comparison - vitos already knows the answer, so there must be something wrong with the chain of reasoning if it leads to a different answer - but since he can't really put his fingers on what is wrong, he is just pointing at one thing after another in turn.

The explanation why he's hanging around in the forum likewise has nothing to do with trolling - we can again read it up in The Book: He can't abandon his mission easily - to go elsewhere would be an admission that his mission actually failed.

Which basically leaves the question what to do. Here, The Book isn't a good guide, because it only collects the stories of the prophets which turned out to be right, but in fact for everyone who was right there are probably 100 who were not. So which kind is vitos?

By lucky (or unlucky) chance, he outlined a vision of (near)-unlimited energy by nuclear fusion, drawing parallels to the short-sightedness of society. It so happens that this is a topic I am rather familiar with. As a student, I thought as vitos that this would be a good vision for the future, and since someone has to do something about it, so why not me, I decided to go into plasma physics. I was in fact in the field up to the point that I did project work at the Joint European Torus, the at that time largest fusion research facility in the world. My time in plasma physics basically convinced me that the vision as advertized doesn't work, and I have made a very informed decision not to take an offer for a PhD project in plasma physics but to do something else. I've since come to the conclusion that the last thing this planet needs is unlimited energy for everyone, and that we should learn to treat this planet carefully before we go into space and start wrecking others.

So, my reasons to reject vitos vision are quite different from what he seems to assume - I would claim that I am not short-sighted, but in fact considerably more far-sighted here than he is.

As to pronounciations like

I say it solvable because it's solvable. There is no dead end problems in real life. Only in someones ignorance.


I'd point out that the ignorance here is entirely on vitos' side. If for instance asked to compute a radiation spectrum from a hot plasma, I could do it given two weeks time (slowly, since it has been a while since I did these calculations), but I seriously doubt vitos would even know where to start. I have the knowledge, calculation techniques, resources and professional competence to make an actual real-life feasibility judgement of a fusion facility (in fact, I have at one time contributed to such a testimony). So there's a vast gap between my and his understanding of the involved problems. As far as I can see, vitos is just talking without having ever bothered to do any calculations or estimates, and he does away with problems without understanding the nature of them. The universe however couldn't care less if you are aware of gravity, are ignorant of it, understand its laws or take them to be a social construct - if you step off a cliff, you will fall, end of story.

So, he's the other kind of prophet here.

I think the idea of an alternative rendering engine as such from orbit is compelling - it's not actually difficult to pull it off in Nasal, and in my tests we have ample framerate. If someone wants to have a serious go with it, I can forward what I have worked out so far. Organizing things vitos' way is obviously not feasible, for the Flightgear community the Vostok-1 is a nice model, not a holy symbol capable of miracle-working, and I find his whole attitude more time-consuming than helpful, even after having understood where it comes from. But we could do it the Flightgear way instead.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10956
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Vostok-1

Postby vitos » Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:15 pm

Thorsten wrote in Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:03 pm:I think I understand now what is going on. vitos is not an egoist, in fact, far from it. He can be best understand in radically different terms - as a prophet of Spacegear.


You had got me right but only partially. I am not prophet of SpaceGear, I am an offerer of common work. Instead of prophets who comes with bare hands or tables with common words I had come with working on itself thing. Participate or not participate.

About plasma things, again, I suppose it's not work right now mostly because Earth society is divided on core than because it's physically impossible. And I had mentioned orbital solar plants, You had missed it, I suppose intentionally.

I, instead of You, do not want some authority and do not care much what You are thinking or telling about me because of that. I am caring about really common work only. Your "Flightgear way" is way of progressing loneliness.
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 durk » Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:40 pm

Thorsten wrote in Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:03 pm:I think I understand now what is going on. vitos is not an egoist, in fact, far from it. He can be best understand in radically different terms - as a prophet of Spacegear.



Interesting thought. Personally, I've come to suspect that there's a much simpeler explanation: Vitos just wants to have the last word.

Cheers,
Durk
durk
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:01 pm
Location: Ghent, Belgium
Callsign: PH-DRK
Version: git
OS: linux

Re: Vostok-1

Postby Hooray » Sun Oct 23, 2011 2:21 pm

Vitos, you are obviously an exceptionally talented modeler and it would be a huge loss for FlightGear to lose a contributor as skilled as you. Your idea of simulating space flight is good, many of us quite obviously like the idea of you using your Vostok-1 in FlightGear to simulate space flight.

Well, I have now carefully tried to describe a different perspective to you several times already, yet I can't help but getting the impression that you are wasting our time.

It took me about 1 hour so far to respond to you, that's time I'd rather spend helping people who are willing to accept my help, people who are actively willing to contribute back to FlightGear, under the project's terms and not under some imaginary terms made up by themselves.

Honestly, you are increasingly getting "high profile" feedback here now, such as by people like HHS, durk, Thorsten, i4dnf and many others.

In other words, every single minute they spend debating with you means that other parts of FlightGear (such as the EC135, the AI traffic system, the local weather system or the IAR80 and lots of if4dnf's recent texture work) may get less attention than they deserve, because of you!.

I'd go as far as claiming now that you are not only wasting our time, but that you are eating up man power and development resources by, pretty successfully, trying to be a PITA.

Really, you are making this more complicated than it needs to be, just reconsider your attitude - you are not going to accomplish anything as long as you are coming across like a fanatic extremist with social issues.

Personally, I really don't believe this is just a language barrier, you are among those users who regularly engage in rhetoric battles with fellow users, and more often than not you are much more eloquent than most of us (myself included), including native English speakers.

It is easy to find numerous examples where you managed to communicate in a completely different manner, successfully I may add.

The thing is, I guess you won't find a single FlightGear user who hasn't once been frustrated with the way FlightGear development "just happens", in fact I guess the same holds true for many FlightGear contributors and even core developers.

I know I belong to this group myself, I have frequently expressed my criticism here, too. And I know for a fact that Thorsten also started out here by critizising the FlightGear development process.

Indeed, most of the more seasoned contributors seem to have started off like this. You only need to do a little forum search (or see the mailing list archives) to see this is right.

Although I think this is actually natural, because critizising something means that you obviously care about it to some degree, and that you'd like to see it improve.

For instance, HHS and some others started improving and modeling helicopters for FlightGear long before there was a real FDM available to actually simulate helicopter flight realistically.

Flug experimented with controlling the AI traffic system from scripting space, even though this was never documented anywhere.

Thorsten started experimenting with implementing weather modeling in scripting space.

I am sure every single one of them could come up with dozens of feature requests for FlightGear to improve a certain part of it, no matter if it's helicopter support, scriptable AI traffic or modeling weather in FG.

Yet, it is important to realize that, more often than not, there is a limited man power available, i.e. you simply have to make workarounds to make any progress at all.

vitos, I argue if you had been the one with the vision for helicopter support in FlightGear, a dog fighting system in FlightGear or a complex weather system, we would have none of this today -simply because you would have always expected core developers to implement your "prophetic vision".

This really isn't how FlightGear development works, which is a good thing in my opinion - because there are only so many core developers.

More and more often, "development" these days is happening INSIDE the base package, where users no longer need to be "core developers" in order to make significant contributions to FlightGear.

Core developers like durk have made FlightGear so powerful that new things -like the bombable addon- can now be developed without even touching the C++ source code, and even without having to talk to core developers at all. That means that it's no longer people with C++ knowledge who shape where the project's going.
Rather, FlightGear users like YOU can make a difference now.

vitos, somehow you apparently managed to have been part of this community for about 3 years, without even sligtly understanding how open source generally works, and how FlightGear in particular works.


There are enough people here who told you how you could go about proceeding without being restricted by FlightGear itself. There are people here who have done similar things in the past, and who illustrated how you simply lack a proper understanding of the issue at hand.

It is stubborn, childish and very uninformed to disregard this type of quality feedback now.
Especially, since you yourself have clearly stated repeatedly that you lack the corresponding knowledge, disregarding now feedback offered by people who quite obviously have the corresponding skills, is not particularly wise, to say the least.

This isn't "just talking" anymore. You have rejected numerous offers providing all forms of support.

I have said this before, for a very long time (i.e. in the plib days), FlightGear used to support the "draw-otw" property that made it possible to disable OTW rendering. If that property is no longer supported, then it's a regression. One that's presumably easy to fix and one which should be reported using the bug tracker so that it can be fixed.

Conceptually, the code implementing the "draw-otw" listener would also more generally allow you to disable rendering of other scene graphs nodes, such as terrain or ocean tiles. That means, should not be too complicated to disable the scenery engine.

Finally, I am not sure if you can afford the luxury of being selective who's supporting you and who isn't. You have repeatedly said that you need core changes to proceed, I provided a number of ideas on how to go on, including a very simple patch to disable terrain rendering for starters. Yes, it's very simple - but it's a first step.

And like I said, you can surely get higher quality feedback by talking to core developers asking them how they'd go about completely disabling the scenery engine so that alternatives can be explored.
Obviously, that would require that you can control your attitude, though!

Making existing code optional and more configurable is mostly about introducing a bunch of new properties, this is well understood by all FlightGear developers, the APIs are easy enough. In fact, I am quite certain that the whole tile manager could be disabled like this, too.

Really, your whole issue is apparently related to a feeling of being ignored by "core developers", but the truth is: a FlightGear core developer is just like you and me, the only exception being access to the main repository.
In other words, if someone were to give you now commit privileges to the core repository, you would all of a sudden be vitos the FlightGear core developer, apart from commit access there is really nothing different at all.

Consequently, that also means that people frustrated with FlightGear would go and yell at vitos the core developer, just because he's got commit privileges.

Yet, from your point of view, not much (if anything) would have changed, right?
You'd still consider yourself just a FlightGear contributor.


Do you think, that'd be fair?


vitos, if you don't want to listen to us, just listen to yourself:

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. And it seems You do not understand structure of most Open Source projects at all.
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: 11329
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: Vostok-1

Postby vitos » Sun Oct 23, 2011 3:45 pm

durk wrote in Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:40 pm:Personally, I've come to suspect that there's a much simpeler explanation: Vitos just wants to have the last word.


I do not want it. I will have it. Because it's thread of my project what others do not want improve or participate in.
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 durk » Sun Oct 23, 2011 3:54 pm

I rest my case.
durk
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:01 pm
Location: Ghent, Belgium
Callsign: PH-DRK
Version: git
OS: linux

Re: Vostok-1

Postby vitos » Sun Oct 23, 2011 4:15 pm

Hooray wrote in Sun Oct 23, 2011 2:21 pm:In other words, every single minute they spend debating with you means that other parts of FlightGear (such as the EC135, the AI traffic system, the local weather system or the IAR80 and lots of if4dnf's recent texture work) may get less attention than they deserve, because of you!.


Thank You for Your long message.

Let me make it easier to You. Will I contribute to "Vostok" project or solve terrain engine problems? No. I had described why, in very exact manner.

Will You, I mean You personally or someone else here, contribute in "Vostok" project or solve terrain engine problems? No, I suppose not. It was become very clear right after first "Vostok" flight, by initial reaction in devel list, and had become clearer and clearer with every word here instead of real problems solving. I had a lot of advices and some propositions but not changes. I was need changes. If I were need advices then I would ask for it exactly, and for sure I do not need promises.

BTW, there was time then I had asked for advices and was supposed to get into core. But it was long ago and I was not get what I had need then. I had seen what it's unreasonable long ago.

Do You think I do not know how things are going here? Of course I know. But I tell it, again and again, that's wont do.

Do You think I am user? Well, try to make Your rocket of same level.

So You are waste Your time, yes. To be honest I do now why You do it, but I do not care about it much. You want to do it, You do it, all is OK.

Me, me not, mostly. I do not waste my time. I find it very useful to tell people how it looks from my perspective. Why? For example because it very nice example for new possible contributors about how Open Source really works. Yes, everyone should know what he actually will be completely alone in attempts to improve something here.

For me it's very nice what some new guy will open thread about first manned spaceflight, will see some nice pictures at beginning and then suddenly will understand what it's abandoned project because project of that level can not be developed in OpenSource, at least OpenSource as You mean it. It's good.

But I am tired of all of that. I think all is said now. Let us finish here.
Last edited by vitos on Sun Oct 23, 2011 4:24 pm, edited 3 times 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

PreviousNext

Return to Spaceflight

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests