Board index FlightGear The FlightGear project

Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Questions about the FlightGear organisation, website, wiki etc.

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Bomber » Mon Dec 14, 2015 2:14 pm

Who are these 'most developers ' you talk about... ?

Are they still here or are we talking about these core developers that once added something but now contribute nothing but still want control..

In one thread it's talked about that there are only a few core developers...yet these are the individuals opinions the majority of military content developers have to abide by.
"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: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby erik » Mon Dec 14, 2015 2:32 pm

There are no 'core developers that once added something' all core developers I know have spent vast amounts of time in improving the code and I value them high. And none of them want control after they laid low for the project. You seem to have a rather skewed view of the developers who made it possible for you to whine about something you do not like right now. And I will not let you smear their reputation in their absence.
For me you've contributed considerably less that the people I talked about.

Erik
erik
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:41 pm

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Bomber » Mon Dec 14, 2015 2:54 pm

Oh I didn't smear em.... that was something I read here written by someone else...

Oh and in your opinion I'm whining, by asking a question you didn't answer.

So WHO are these core developers, that object to military development. Development that when brought up gets bombed on these forums time and time again by two people and two people only..

One doesn't get to be a core developer unless one proves themselves, yet you can't do that without core developers being involved.. so you have to play nicely in the sand pit, not rock the boat and part of that is agree with them..

You talk about not smearing core developers ? How about the bombing of content development threads and stuff of vitos... where we're you then ?

How come you allow an individual to be smeared but for me to question just who these core developers are and their involvement and you're straight in.

Grow a pair.
"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: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby erik » Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:07 pm

Bomber wrote in Mon Dec 14, 2015 2:54 pm:Oh I didn't smear em.... that was something I read here written by someone else....

Ok so that was a false statement by the third party.
Oh and in your opinion I'm whining, by asking a question you didn't answer.

It's whining when you demand clarification for something that didn't happen.
So WHO are these core developers, that object to military development. Development that when brought up gets bombed on these forums time and time again by two people and two people only..

I'm not going to provide any names. It was a statement about that happened back then, just for clarification. If you see more to the post you're wrong.
One doesn't get to be a core developer unless one proves themselves, yet you can't do that without core developers being involved.. so you have to play nicely in the sand pit, not rock the boat and part of that is agree with them..

Which is life. I come up to you, smack you in the head and then ask for your help to fix my car. Would you do that?
You talk about not smearing core developers ? How about the bombing of content development threads and stuff of vitos... where we're you then ?

That was way to much fro me to follow. I concentrate on threads that i find interesting, not the ones that suck the life out of me.
How come you allow an individual to be smeared but for me to question just who these core developers are and their involvement and you're straight in.

Simple, I did not get involved in those discussion, and Vitos was there to defend himself. I was however involved in discussion withe the core developers who I was talking about. And in contrast to Vitos, there are not around to defend themselves.

Grow a pair.

Maybe you should back off a bit. You're the one seeing ghosts.

Erik
erik
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:41 pm

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Torsten » Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:48 pm

erik wrote in Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:07 pm:So WHO are these core developers, that object to military development.

I am one.
flightgear.org - where development happens.
User avatar
Torsten
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: near Hamburg, Germany
Callsign: offline
Version: next
OS: Linux

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Thorsten » Mon Dec 14, 2015 5:47 pm

How about the bombing of content development threads and stuff of vitos...


What bombing?
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10521
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby MIG29pilot » Mon Dec 14, 2015 6:16 pm

May we please shut up and talk flight?
User avatar
MIG29pilot
 
Posts: 1454
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 4:03 pm
Location: 6 feet under Snow
Callsign: MIG29pilot
Version: 3.7nightly
OS: Windows 10

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Lydiot » Tue Dec 15, 2015 3:49 pm

Thorsten wrote in Sun Dec 13, 2015 5:46 pm:If you're after realism, where does it stop? In the real world, there are day by day civilians killed by bombs, and there are corpses lying around afterwards. Do we include that as well, just to be yet more real?


Torsten wrote in Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:48 pm:
erik wrote in Mon Dec 14, 2015 3:07 pm:So WHO are these core developers, that object to military development.

I am one.


I have a question for you both - it is a technical question:

Would it be possible to implement enough in the "core" or "official" software so that an externally distributed add-on "plugin" could add the functionality some people would like to see?

Forgive the terminology, but I'm essentially just saying that for anyone that downloads FG from official sources it'd be a civilian sim, and if a smaller group wanted to dogfight etc they'd have to go outside to get the functionality - AND people in MP wouldn't see anything other than fighters flying around; i.e. no missiles flying, no planes disintegrating etc.

The non-technical question then is: Would that suffice from the perspective that you oppose the functionality from?

PS: I am inclined to agree with the sentiment that it should be a civilian aviation simulator, and not a combat-sim.
Lydiot
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Thorsten » Tue Dec 15, 2015 4:00 pm

Isn't that what bombable by and large does?

There's been talk about binary 'modules' to be loaded optionally, so that you could have optional C++ functionality, but I don't think that's feasible just yet.

(For the record, I think most functionality is there - JSBSim allows very realistic damage and failure modeling if you know how to use it, we can manage submodels, detect collisions, track targets - it's really not so much a question of coding something new but of putting it all together in a certain way...)
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10521
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Lydiot » Tue Dec 15, 2015 4:13 pm

I don't really fly military aircraft, and I don't care about combat really, so I have no idea what "bombable" is.

But it's good to know it's possible, because in my mind it really means that one doesn't exclude the other. I think that part of the discussion then seems... somewhat unneeded.
Lydiot
 
Posts: 973
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby bugman » Tue Dec 15, 2015 5:00 pm

Bombable is very well documented on the wiki:

Bombable is an addon for FlightGear that adds bombs, weapons, damage, fire, and explosion effects to FlightGear that work with the main aircraft, scenery, AI aircraft and other AI objects, and multiplayer aircraft objects. Bombable turns FlightGear into a combat flight simulator.


Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1602
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Bomber » Tue Dec 15, 2015 6:16 pm

Yes yes we can hack flightgear to make a combat sim of sorts but when a core developer that is massivley opposed to combat simulation advocates it, I'd expect anyone with half a brain to question what the motive is ?

I don't like bombable, because it's continually used as above to say "Look FG does combat"...... it's a means of regularly difussing a situation where people come here in good faith and yet after being told in no uncertain terms " We don't do combat, the core devs don't do combat, we'll not help with implementing any code into FG that has a combat bias"...... but " Heh look we doooo combat "

Now those that like combat simulation are left in a difficult situation.....

But this isn't actually about whether FG does combat simulation.... which lets face it are nothing more that a couple of basic systems..projectile, collision, damage at it's basic level, with some more advanced aviaonics and AI at it's complex...

Interestingly most of us weren't asking for Torsten or Thorstens help in any of this.... I myself introduced a couple of professional coders who very quickly were fed up with getting the run around and came to the conclussion that there was no point.... No point in coding if at the end of the day there's not a snow balls chance in hell of it every making it into FG... because what we don't want is a combat sim so heavily hacked with addons that it becomes a stuttering slideshow.... but that suits some people.

And that's what it's realy about.... saying one thing on one forum, saying something else on another and bascially being disengenuous.

Simon
"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: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby wlbragg » Tue Dec 15, 2015 6:47 pm

I use a basic OS command called "copy" all the time. You know anyone, including "professional coders" can use that command to make a duplicate of FG, put it up on a site somewhere, add hooks to the c++ code to make it do what you want and even call it "official", as in say "Official Military FlightGear Portal".

I think a lot of people forget that you don't need permission to do whatever you want to do with FG. I think that "permission" sometimes gets confused with getting others to join your vision of what you think FG should be or include. If enough people want it to include a combat aspect then they should do just that, Make a combat aspect version of FG. Do I have the drive to start it up and take on the responsibility to manage it, no way. Would I participate, absolutely, because I grew up on combat sims and I have no problem with them, they are a fascinating simulation.
No one can stop you.

As far as the philosophical aspect, if the universe is anything like the natural world on this planet (survival of the fittest), we may very well need to be versed in all the military aspects of our small world. It may just be a warm up for future events.
Kansas(2-27-15)/Ohio/Midwest scenery development.
KEQA (2-27-15), 3AU, KRCP Airport Layout
User avatar
wlbragg
 
Posts: 4553
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:31 pm
Location: Kansas (Tornado Alley), USA
Callsign: WC2020
Version: next
OS: Win10/Debain/nVGT640

Re: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby Bomber » Tue Dec 15, 2015 7:13 pm

I guess one reason for not doing it was to not be divisive.. I mean it's not a good start to say " We're going to fork FG and create a combat sim"... no one wants to be at odds or for that matter work blindly on someone elses code adding in the combat code here and there.

Maybe enough people will eventually come together to create enough momentum to fork FG but when there are core devs working against this happening by pushing content developers that have a combat sim bias away, then I don't see it happening anytime soon.

I don't see any passive desire towards that direction, more the opposiye as I do see a lot of people that have no combat sim desire bouncing into combat sim threads time and time again in a very antagonistic manner.

And talking philisophically.... it's human nature to keep your head down..
"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: Military simulation (from Su-15 Screenshots)

Postby bugman » Tue Dec 15, 2015 7:21 pm

Bombable is a highly respected and an easy to install FlightGear addon, with many official wiki articles. Here is a list of the official FGAddon aircraft with at least some Bombable support:

Code: Select all
[edward@localhost Aircraft]$ grep -rIi bombable | sed "s/\/.*//g" | sort -u
14bis
21
A-10
A24-Viking
A-26-Invader
Aermacchi-MB-339
Aero-Commander
Aichi-M6A
Airco-DH2
AirCrane
Albatros-BII
Allegro-2000
Alphajet
ANT-20
Antoinette
Antonov-An-12
Antonov-An-22
AR-234
Arsenal-VG33
Arup-S2
ASK21-MI
Avro-Arrow
Avro-Lancaster
B-17
B-24-Liberator
B-25
BAe-125
Beechcraft-C18S
Beechcraft-Staggerwing
Bell-222X
Bell-P-39
Bell-P-59
Bell-X1
Bell-XFL-1
Bernard-HV220
Bleriot-125
Bleriot-5190
Bleriot-SPAD-S.510
bleriot-XI
Boeing-247
Boeing-P26
Bombardier-415
Br-761
Brabazon
Breda-B.Z.308
Breguet-XIX
Bugatti
BV-141
BV-170
C130
C-160-Transall
C-2A
C460
C561
Campini-Caproni-N1
Caproni-C22J
Caproni-Stipa
Carreidas
Cessna-208-Caravan
Cessna-421-Golden-Eagle
Cirrus-SR22
Coanda-1910
Commonwealth-Ca-12
couzinet70
Curtiss-Jenny
Curtiss-Model-F
Curtiss-P40
D510
Dassault-Mystere-IV
Deperdussin
DH-88
DH-89
DH-91
dhc3
Diamond-Da40
Diamond-Da42
DO-228
DO-335
Douglas-Dolphin
DR400
Dunne-D.5
Embraer-ERJ-145
Etrich-Taube
F-106-dart
F6F-Hellcat
F7F-Tigercat
F9F-Panther
Fairchild-C119
Fairchild-Metroliner
Fairey-Gannet
Falcon-50
Farman-IV
Fiat-G55
Fiat-G91
Focke-Wulf-F19-ente
Focke-Wulf-Ta.154
Fokker-Eindecker-EIII
Fokker-G1
Ford-Trimotor
Fouga-Magister
Gloster-Gladiator
Gloster-Meteor
Gloster-Whittle
Gotha-G-V
Grob-Astir
Grob-G109
Grob-G115
Grumman-American-AA1
H1-Racer
H4-Hercules
Handley-Page-Halifax
Harrier-GR1
Harrier-GR3
Heinkel-He-111
Heinkel-He-177
Heinkel-He-178
Heinkel-He-280
HM-14
Horten-Ho-IX
HS-P-75
Hughes-XF11
IL-2
JA37
Jaguar
Jodel-D140
Ju-87
Junkers-F13
Junkers-Ju-390
Junkers-W34
K-7
Ka-50
Katana
Kawasaki-Ki-61-Hien
KM
La-5
Lancair-235
LATE-29
Late-631
Leduc-022
Lionceau
Lockheed-P38
Lockheed-SR71
Lockheed-U-2S
Long-EZ
Macchi-Castoldi-MC72
ME-209-V1
ME-262
Messerschmitt-BF110
Messerschmitt-Libelle
Messerschmitt-P1101
MiG-21bis
Mil-Mi-12
Mil-Mi-24
Mirage-2000
MirageIII
Nord-1405-Gerfaut-II
Nord-2502
North-American-T28D-Trojan
North-American-T6-Texan
Northrop-P61
Northrop-xb35
p51d
payen-pa100
payen-pa350cd
PC-12
Percival-Mew-Gull
Piaggio-Pegna-Pc-7
Polikarpov-I16
Quickie
RAF-S-E-5
Ryan-Navion
Ryan-PT22
Ryan-SoSL
Saunders-Roe-Princess
Short-Stirling
SIAI-Marchetti-S.205R
SIAI-Marchetti-SF.260
Sikorsky-S38
Skyranger
Sky-sportster
Skyvan
Socata-ST10
SPAD-VII
Stampe-SV4
Starship
Stearman
Stiletto
Super-Etendard
Supermarine-S.6B
TBM-Avenger
Tecnam-P2006T
Tecnam-P2010
Tigre
Tu-134
TU-95
Tu-SB2bis-M103
UH-1
UH-60
V22-Osprey
Velocity-XL
Vickers-Vanguard
Vickers-Vimy
Westland-Whirlwind
XB-70
XP-67
Yak-18T
Yak-23
Yak-36
Zlin-50lx


Anyone, and everyone, is free to use this and extend and expand the capabilities of the Bombable FlightGear addon.

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1602
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

PreviousNext

Return to The FlightGear project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests