Board index FlightGear Development Scenery

USS Nimitz Supercarrier

Questions and discussion about enhancing and populating the FlightGear world.

Re: USS Nimitz Supercarrier

Postby Thorsten » Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:03 am

After I understood the concept of the new AI dialog I decided to add a click animation to the towers, as this is quite useful, but I stay with a carrier specific dialog (as the new AI dialog is a carrier dialog anyhow).


It seems you didn't really, because the new AI dialog concept is an object-specific dialog - it brings up a different dialog for the Truman and the Nimitz reflecting what each of them supports (or not), and by and large you ought to be able to have them spawn side by side and command them to do different things - which was why James came up with the requirement and made me tinker to implement this for a week in the first place.

For that (and other) reason, it'd be nice if you'd try to understand why I selected only parts of your work and left others out(god knows, I sure didn't like re-writing lots of stuff for the thrill of it, but I believed it might feel a bit unwelcoming if I'd just send it all back and make you do it according to James' specs to get committed... it might have felt discouraging) - in other words, I'd much prefer if you'd try to work with us rather than do your own thing in parallel because you find our attempts to future-proof FG offensive.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: USS Nimitz Supercarrier

Postby mhab » Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:42 pm

Not sure if this will lead to anything useful, but some remarks on what I understood was decided ...

I learned that many of the things I did for carrier improvement are better dealt with in FG kernel.
I agree.

What this means from my understanding:
1. This will or will not happen at any time or whenever who knows ...

2. I am on the Nasal side of the fence and not in the inner circles of FG kernel C++ team

So that would mean for me: That's it

So if collaboration means to stop my activities I am not willing to do that for now.

And one thought about the new AI objects dialog ...

In FG 2018 it works on the following objects:

Code: Select all
var carriers = props.globals.getNode("/ai/models").getChildren("carrier");


and the approach means for current carriers:
- 7 different dialogs (if the missing Foch is counted)

- 4 out of the 7 are Nimitz class carriers
- 2 are Clemenceau and identical Foch
- 1 San Antonio ... with only a stern door

Well I prefer less redundancy, while I fully agree that carriers should be possible to control independently.

Mike DE
mhab
 
Posts: 398
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 10:59 pm
Callsign: D-MIKE
Version: 2017.1.2
OS: Win7

Re: USS Nimitz Supercarrier

Postby Thorsten » Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:43 pm

I am on the Nasal side of the fence and not in the inner circles of FG kernel C++ team


I actually didn't change any Nasal to C++ - I did things like replace per-frame polling for property changes by more efficient listeners and such like.

So I'm pretty much on the Nasal side as well.

I'm not really aware of substantial features you brought to the table and I disabled - I added a few (Richards approach guidance system and the wave motion) but otherwise tried to keep everything I found functional.

So I'm not sure what we're talking about here - can you give an example?

Well I prefer less redundancy


This is not about what you prefer or what I prefer - the question was discussed on the mailing list, the spec for the AI control dialog was agreed upon there and when implementing it I had to adhere to that spec - like it or not (I did not very much, but I see the underlying reasoning).
Thorsten
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Previous

Return to Scenery

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest