Board index FlightGear Development Aircraft

F8E related, last update by trenk

Questions and discussion about creating aircraft. Flight dynamics, 3d models, cockpits, systems, animation, textures.

F8E related, last update by trenk

Postby Josh_grtuxteam » Wed Apr 26, 2017 9:57 am

F8E related, last update by trenk.
I feel obliged to get out from my beach chair.
That's not a surprise noticing that last irrespectuous intervention by trenk , who dared to modify the content of the F8E Crusader package without any respect of the Gérard work.
For instance:
The tags <tag>vietnam</tag> should not be there since the Crusader 's Gérard version is the French one with specific FDM mostly because of the French Carrier specifications ( shorter runway and catapult).
That French version is not a US generic one but the French specific one.

In addition <tag> with variable geometry ( the right definition ought to be variable incidence) is missing.
When an individual don't know he should ask to person who know instead of creating his own rule, that's the usual process within a good working team.

Our team is ever listening answering to any question , our address mail is ever open, easy to find within our Web page.
https://sites.google.com/site/grtuxhangarctd/
BTW: The very last official updates are ever there https://sourceforge.net/projects/grtuxsimfg/
under svn and zipped pack ,
remember those Gérard models who are sitting in FGAddon are outdated and should stand at "attic"

Well, getting back to the beach.
regards

Josh and the team
User avatar
Josh_grtuxteam
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:58 pm
Location: France
Version: lastStable
OS: Linux OpenSUSE

Re: F8E related, last update by trenk

Postby Thorsten » Wed Apr 26, 2017 11:27 am

Please chill - there's an ongoing effort to tag all aircraft that has been announced a while ago for instance here, everyone interested is asked to provide tags and there's no need to get upset that this actually happens. I'm tagging 1-2 aircraft per day as well as doing low-level maintenance on all that do not start properly (as in the case of the Crusader).

So much for the explanation of what's happening, I won't answer to the more personal stuff - kindly cope with the fact that after James and Stuart have asked multiple times to provide tags, all aircraft which don't have the data from their maintainers by now are fair game to be tagged by everyone interested and we won't try to contact every maintainer personally to ask for permission.

As far as the update is concerned - please say the word and I'll put it to FGAddon for you. Otherwise thanks for the info, I'll update the tags.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11193
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: F8E related, last update by trenk

Postby erik » Wed Apr 26, 2017 1:44 pm

Correct, I might have done it myself otherwise.
If you don't like it it's just one commit away from pushing the updates yourself.
This is a once per aircraft effort.

Erik
erik
 
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:41 pm

Re: F8E related, last update by trenk

Postby Thorsten » Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:35 pm

The tags <tag>vietnam</tag> should not be there since the Crusader 's Gérard version is the French one


Actually I believe it should. If you look at the Wiki page with the description of how the tags should be done, you can find that the era tags should be

logical groupings, not historical accuracy.

Since this is a Vietnam war era aircraft, I don't think it matters whether this particular variant has participated in the war, it matters that people would expect to find it under the tag.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11193
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: F8E related, last update by trenk

Postby Thorsten » Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:28 pm

Anyway, your Readme suggests that you'd like to see the latest updates of the aircraft committed:

Quoting: That folder content is aimed to be commited for FGAddon.

So unless I see an objection from you, I will do that on your behalf when I find the time.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11193
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: F8E related, last update by trenk

Postby Josh_grtuxteam » Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:47 am

Quoting: That folder content is aimed to be commited for FGAddon.

Yes but not by you, since you demonstrated , you are not respectful for works and idea coming from others:
for instance , recent vietnam tag , or earlier model developer Rembrandt parameters.

So working with you makes things very difficult, it is not convenient.

Josh
User avatar
Josh_grtuxteam
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:58 pm
Location: France
Version: lastStable
OS: Linux OpenSUSE

Re: F8E related, last update by trenk

Postby Thorsten » Thu Apr 27, 2017 9:20 am

So basically you're setting up a Catch 22 for the FG project:

* if we do not pull and commit your latest additions, you keep harping on the topic that what's on FGAddon is obsolete

* if we do update the FGAddon contents to keep them up to date with core changes, you complain that what we do is disrespectful

* but since you're actually not giving your consent to anyone to commit your work, you'd complain about us being disrespectful if we do commit your recent work just as well

We can't satisfy your wishes - neither by committing nor by not committing. I guess you're just one of the people who enjoy feeling disrespected then.

(Note that I'm writing we here because it was repeatedly suggested to you that you pick any person with commit rights you trust to do it for you - and yet you could pick no one.)

As for me being disrespectful with regard to 'the Rembrandt incident' - it's been explained to you a number of times why aircraft should not override user setting for rendering (just as they should not set their own environment or similar things). There's a consensus among developers to not have such things on the repository, I'm just the messenger and others would tell you (and have told Ahmad) just the same thing. If you insist in not playing by the rules of the project, FGAddon is unfortunately not the right repository for your work.

Anyway - no worries, I'll honor your request to not commit the latest work, but I will do the necessary maintenance for what is on FGAddon in this case, I won't let this degrade just because you enjoy your catch 22 setup.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11193
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: F8E related, last update by trenk

Postby erik » Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:39 am

I'm with Thorsten in this one: Everything in FGAddon may be updated by the maintainers if they see fit. Which does not prevent the maintainers to commit an update to the changes in the next commit request.

Erik
erik
 
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:41 pm

Re: F8E related, last update by trenk

Postby Richard » Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:04 pm

Josh_grtuxteam wrote in Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:47 am:Yes but not by you, since you demonstrated , you are not respectful for works and idea coming from others:
for instance , recent vietnam tag , or earlier model developer Rembrandt parameters.


Someone should do this because it reflects badly on the model if the FGAddon version is out of date. This is something that I encountered often in my early days with FG simply because I was only aware of the main downloads page. I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine that this will affect the majority of FG pilots.

FGAddon has always respected Author's rights over the GPL - my view, as an author, is that once an original author has added their work to FGAddon it is a maintenance task to keep this updated.

My view is that when FGaddon is out of date (compared the definitive source) then FGAddon should be updated by anyway who is willing and able to perform the update.
Richard
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:17 pm
Version: Git
OS: Win10

Re: F8E related, last update by trenk

Postby Thorsten » Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:03 pm

Well, let me try to present the options once more.

We as developers would like to have up-to-date versions of all aircraft on the repository. However, the repository has certain standards and content needs to comply with them or it can't be committed. Examples are contributions which violate licensing, which silently override user settings or which silently change the environment simulation.

Not wanting such content in FGAddon is not disrespectful to anyone, it's for our own legal protection as well as our sanity and that of the users because there's a strong possibility that aircraft which fiddle silently with FG settings introduce subtle and difficult to find bugs.

As author, you're per default the maintainer of an aircraft - that's a right as well as a responsibility. The right is that you decide how you develop it further and co-ordinate contributions from others, the responsibility is that you react to calls for action on the mailing list (such a tag update) and that you work constructively with others who want to develop the same aircraft.

If there has been a call for action for maintainers (again, such as exemplified by the tagging) and you have not answered, it's FGAddon policy that FG developers will make corresponding changes to ensure that the aircraft works well with future FG versions. Again, doing so is not disrespectful, it is how the project works, it is impossible to track down personally all maintainers who don't read the mailing list.

So - Josh:

If you want your updates to be committed to FGAddon, please pick a person you trust. It's perfectly fine if that's someone other than me - I seem to remember other people have offered to commit on your behalf. However, please do not expect that a different person will mean you can get something like a plane that automatically selects Rembrandt or silently changes rendering settings or has non-GPL content committed - these things have (see above) no business to be in the repo and can be removed at any time.

If you feel you can not find any trusted committer under all people who have access to FGAddon and turn down all offers to act on your behalf, you can no longer act as maintainer. That's also okay, but in that case you can't exercise a veto right over what is on FGAddon - someone else may step in and take over maintenance - in that case, you have essentially asked to have your own fork under your exclusive control.

Also, it's fine to turn down offers to commit your work to FGAddon, but it's not fine to make forum posts how sad it is that your work is not on the repository - that's then the result of your decisionmaking, and it's not fair to blame anyone else for this state of affairs.

So let me suggest you get in touch with a person of your choice who has commit rights and ask him to make the updates for you. Let me also suggest that if you don't want anyone touching your work ever, you answer to calls to actions for maintainers as published on the mailing list.

Personally, as I said I will respect your request that I do not commit your updates. However, next time I read a statement from you that your updates should be on FGAddon in the forum, I will assume that you've had a change of mind and make the updates. I hope that's fair for all parties concerned.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11193
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: F8E related, last update by trenk

Postby Octal450 » Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:46 pm

Question:
If a dialog popped up: This aircraft works best with Rembrandt turned on. Would you like me to do that automatically?
[YES] [NO]

Then the user can decide?
Waste of time. Goodbye forever.
Octal450
 
Posts: 4398
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 12:51 pm

Re: F8E related, last update by trenk

Postby Thorsten » Fri Apr 28, 2017 4:28 am

The primary problem is that you can't turn on Rembrandt in-sim, you have to do it at startup, i.e. within the launcher before the aircraft can execute any scripts - which is why this was done silently.

The more fundamental problem is that many rendering settings (shader quality level etc.) are auto-saved and that on-screen recommendations are usually followed by people who don't know the details of what they're doing.

So imagine the following scenario: User X with a lower-end system starts up on of these aircraft. He's rather new to FG and isn't aware of the difference between renderers, so he clicks the box. The result turns out not to run on his computer (too slow, weird colors, the usual GPU overload...), so he goes back to the aircraft which used to run before, but finds the same thing, it suddenly doesn't work any more.

Next thing we see is the forum thread 'FG suddenly broken'. Happy debugging... and since this is a rendering related one, it's likely to end up on my lap.

For that reason, rendering settings belong into the rendering dialog - if a user changes settings there and suddenly things cease to work, he knows where he has fiddled and what he has to do to go back to the previous state.

(Btw., a statement like 'this aircraft works best with Rembrandt' isn't even true. The best visuals buy you nothing if you get to enjoy them at 5 fps, and while some aircraft have Rembrandt lights but no ALS cockpit lighting, you see the difference chiefly at night, during the day your visuals with ALS will be generally better because of things like procedural terrain texturing - so rendering settings are always a matter of your personal preferences and your hardware and not a decision the aircraft maintainer can make for you).
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11193
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: F8E related, last update by trenk

Postby Octal450 » Fri Apr 28, 2017 4:09 pm

True.
Waste of time. Goodbye forever.
Octal450
 
Posts: 4398
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 12:51 pm

Re: F8E related, last update by trenk

Postby Josh_grtuxteam » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:20 pm

Hi, All
Reading your answers makes me to conclude you are probably those guy who like to propagate fake news about persons you dislike.

About GRTUX models it was NEVER said and DONE that Rembrandt was turn on in-sim.
But you dont' refer to the old mail and explanation, given for years by our team members.
We just ensured to continue the work following the Gérard's recommendations, when he was alive.

So again about that specific subject => Rembrandt <= it was EVER said, by him and our team members

PLEASE read twice carefully :

When the user is using Rembrandt with some GRTUX models , some specific parameters are automatically tuned on within Rembrandt in order to balance some visual effects


"When the user is using Rembrandt" doesn't mean that Rembrandt was turn on in-sim.

Josh
User avatar
Josh_grtuxteam
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:58 pm
Location: France
Version: lastStable
OS: Linux OpenSUSE

Re: F8E related, last update by trenk

Postby Thorsten » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:37 pm

About GRTUX models it was NEVER said and DONE that Rembrandt was turn on in-sim.


Let me quote Jean Pellotier, 1.7.2014:

concerning the Crusader and the Blackbird, got some problems:

-there's still a "rembrandt" part in your -set files for both, it
doesn't activate rembrandt anymore
, but is it ok to overwrite rembrandt
user settings in a plane?


https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/ma ... /31818630/

I trust you're sufficiently familiar with the meaning of not anymore to know that it means if something doesn't do X any more, it did do X before.

So you seem to be grossly mistaken in your claim - sadly for you, the mailing list archive keeps the record :D

We may agree that since 2014 or so it wasn't done. But let me assure you that it's also not okay to overwrite user settings airplane side.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11193
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Next

Return to Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Applebot [Bot], MSN [Bot] and 2 guests