@camileck
It is a long story...
In case of the IDG team its easier to use github, but the plane will be on FGaddon after the v1.0 release. At the moment we still update it a lot, as it is WIP.
Regards,
Charlie (Wecsje)
Wecsje wrote:the plane will be on FGaddon after the v1.0 release.
And we (IDG) have no commit access to FGAddon.
We prefer to use GitHub as it integrates seamlessly with several of our tools we use, like Slack etc
Why in FGAddon hangar some of the offered aircrafts are just "poorer" version of aircrafts that can be downloaded from 3rd party repositories?
Thorsten wrote:Might also be because you never asked... (at least I can't recall reading any such message on the mailing list).
Thorsten wrote:Adding to that, there's good arguments for developing on an external repository and pushing regular snapshots to FGAddon.
Thorsten wrote:One of them is tools (GIT vs. SVN), another is binary history - if you edit texture files and push updates, you're quickly creating a huge repository - which maybe not everyone wants to have.
Thorsten wrote:Whereas otherwise I'd have to join the A-320 team, but they might have rules and modeling guidelines which I don't like, I might not be able to do what I want but have to follow team decisions,... and I'd have to make a merge request for my custom graphics effects at which point I might be told to alter them somewhat...
I do believe I am not welcome on the mailing list. If this is no longer the case, then that is new news to me.
camileck wrote in Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:11 am:Seeing this I just give up on FG. If the A320 in default hangar was IDG version (just example, haven't seen it yet) I would really got interested at FG and I would stay with FG for years.
Nevertheless I would like to consider the topic from different perspective - user's one.
Thorsten wrote in Fri Aug 25, 2017 1:35 pm:Nevertheless I would like to consider the topic from different perspective - user's one.
This may sound harsh, but it's an open-source project - developers usually work on what they're interested in or consider important, user perspective figures only marginally.
You are not telling me that FG is the project aiming only to entertain its developers, are you?
Thorsten wrote in Fri Aug 25, 2017 3:04 pm:You are not telling me that FG is the project aiming only to entertain its developers, are you?
FG is aiming to create a realistic open-source flight simulation - says so in the mission statement. Typically people become developers because they share that goal - to the degree that users expect different things from the developers (to name a few which have been brought up - simplified flight dynamics, missions and rankings,...) they tend to be disappointed.
Otherwise it's simple - why would people do things they're not personally interested in in their spare time when they can code instead things they are genuinely interested in? Or, to make it more concrete - why would I possibly change a GIT devel repository to something less technical because users ask for something more simple and accessible when it works for me?
Users browsing this forum: Giabicone and 1 guest