Tu-144

[FL2070]

Another one of my posts turning into an FGMEMBERS debate.. xD

[jwocky]

Well,Vitos, you have done 5-6 planes and for years none of them was even available to the public. So definitively your planes haven't been the big attractor, despite all their beauty. I did 60-70 planes and thosewere part of the step to go from 5 users at MP to 20. In the meantime, you see at most times about 50 users in MP and aside of my planes, I see a lot of others which started as half-mellowed projects and were expanded over time. So, from a point of view of how many users are made happy, I think, I got more. No need to discuss that, the facts are clear.
However, I agree, we need a higher quality standard. Sure. There are two different approaches to get there. Make in ten years 5 planes perfect, leaves 800 planes in the limbo. Or try to make as many as you can a little better. Many of my planes were actually improvements of Helijah one, the next step. Not just "developers like Helijah and me", you should inform yourself about how this happened historically.
And yes, I remember a lot of things, I wanted to do better on many planes. I didn't get around to it, sorry. The day has only 24 hours and some of them I actually need to work in rl. So, as sad as it is, I won't apologize for the day having only 24 hours.
Now, here is the bottom line:Nobody forces you to use JPack. Single special planes are the pearly in FG's plane collection. You do the pearls, the Fabergé eggs ... I do in the meantime those very normal eggs you get at the grocery. And if you ever feel like you want to take one of "mine", kick out JPack, and make it one of your works of art, they are GPL, so feel free, I would enjoy it.

[vitos]

There are two different approaches to get there.

Well, You forgot one important thing - project can die. If flow of people out would be greater than one in.

For example, if someone else would make other OS simulator, with better detailed view and fps at some place, and better common views and fps everywhere, with only three basic models, same Cessna, Boeing and F-16, but really good ones, and clear documentation of how to use and add more, with helping society, while FG would have still tons of halfmade models and halfmade or draggy places, with alienating pseudo community, incompatible with new one of course - people will turn out of FG quite fast, and then they will remember it only as "that thing which was once before". As You can fly some old sims, and improve some of these even, but do not do that.

Generations changing, and new generations uses old things if its easier to use it instead of making own new ones only. Alienating with predecessors is just normal part of growing. While FG is at critical border long time in that means. It's quite hard to use, takes ten times more cpu for ten years old looking picture, much harder to improve, tends to exploit and then push out people, not improves much with time, and it exists too long, so can meet new generation soon - as mobile devices are using Android , and that not brings anything to master Linux projects as Debian or Fedora.

What if Outerra will go at CC for example, without allowing changes, but with clear interfaces, and fact declared by license that it will not be paid to use it in some means as educational fight sim instead of some quite moneyshaking MMO? Are You supposing that people will add laggy nasal to it instead of some other, commonly known, interpreter, or just threaded bus for own libraries compiled from any language, as really opened thing should do? Are You suggesting that dudes at FG have guts to throw away own engine with stuff and become students at same rights as possible competitors, now as addon to something instead of whole sim with some, You know, owner?

FG do not do any steps which could protect it at quite possible future competition. It acts as if it could be monopolist at OS flight simulation area forever. While there is not eternal anything.

Did't You think that CC sim is not GPL sim? Creative people are not general public; so their community differs from common one, and it's resultative more, thus common people tends to become users of products made by it, instead of own ones. Flight sim is not common thing anyway. If it would then some would be installed at almost each personal device powerful enough. It's not some operating system or word processor. CC license suits it more, people who makes it I mean. And such people are ones having good brains, they do not forget and forgive words as "You are just modeler" and similar, moreover clearly hostile actions, they just tolerate it until time comes in. So if CC flight sim would fade in, FG would fade out.

You think that You have unlimited time. While I never forgot that must probably we have not it, not in means of 24 hours, but in means of total end, at least in current form. I do not like those FG core people, yes, they made me a lot of disturbance, and I do have some, say, ideological divergency with them, but I do not want that project to die anyway. Thats why I did not contacted Outerra with some proposals yet. Still someone will start it someday somehow anyway. I am not rat to run first, but if people will start to walk out here, I will not be last of them for sure, since I am not captain of that ship.

So there is not two ways to get where life is going on. Only sole one way which are working - to make the things good and be friendly. And a lots of approaches, which are not.

BTW, my "Su" model is opened to public, if by public You mean people who interested in flying it personally. Moreover, it's opened for some developers who was smart and pure enough to ask for it as license proposes, instead of just taking as own, as there was not man who made it before. Are You thinking that there is some other public, existed besides of people? Then I have some bad news for You.

[bomber]

You seem to have misunderstood Outerra....

Outerra can't go CC or GPL or whatever.. it's not set up to do things like that.

It's a 3d world engine.... content creators don't have access to it's core code... but on the flip side core developers don't have any rights to tell a content developer what license he can use.

There is a clear demarcation between these two sets of people... but even with this demarcation it's the best content / core development relationship I've ever worked in... better than Warbirds, Targetware or Flightgear.... there's some real respect for the type of work each party does going off over there.

It won't ever use nasal....

The normal question asked... is how does Outerra make money, surely by charging people to play... but play what ?
At present I think you pay $15US (it's been a while since I payed) and you get unlimited updates of the world engine, which happens on a regular basis... You can then mod to your hearts content, adding planes, ships, anything you fancy... but these's still no game, or sim to call one... It's just a content creator sand box.

So what's the endgame ?

Well Outerra aren't interested in making money off some poxy little niche WWII combat flight sim like T4T, just aint gonna keep the wolves from the door, they got bigger clients with government contracts to haul in. So they're quite happy (as we are) to have T4T operating a free to play air combat sim with the understanding that it's not going to get massive. If it does we'll cross that bridge, but if it is massive then T4T will have bigger things to worry about than a pay to play issue.

At present though we've got everyone from different genres all working together without any politics, we got space people, to helicopters to jets to gliders and tanks and ships with terrain people adding bits here and there and in the background 15 very active moders on skype.

I'm a flight modeller, so I can work in both systems.. what it real boils down to is being a flight sim enthusiast and I'm not selling Outerra here just talking about it...

Regards

Simon

[vitos]

You seem to have misunderstood Outerra....

Outerra can't go CC or GPL or whatever.. it's not set up to do things like that.

I said about it as example only. In fact, I meant just some new project which works, and which is turned to people by side of some simple rules, as

• You don't need to pay, nor in means of money, nor in of some "scratch my back" means, until You are not just player or someone selling some upper level subproject to some player or someone else.
• You have guarantee what core project will stay working, and will not change some already declared things, and You will not lose all Your stuff with it - if Your stuff sends to core things as previously, it receives from core things as previously.
• Your product is Yours and You are who decides what to do with it.
• You do know what You can do clearly, and if You need more then at least You can ask and You will receive some clear answer.
• You are respected, does not matter who You are.

Just other project which not fails at basics as FG does.

[bomber]

Yes that's how outerra development is working but with one exception. .

You have guarantee what core project will stay working, and will not change some already declared things, and You will not lose all Your stuff with it - if Your stuff sends to core things as previously, it receives from core things as previously.

This requirement is simply unworkable..... you can put a stop on continued core development or tell them what they can and can't do. However change to core and it's effect on content does have to be communicated back to content developers. It's a two way street this., we've already seen content developers add functionality that the core developers have considered a good addition to the core code, making it easier for content developers.

As long as core developers and content developers are working together from a base of mutual respect then there isn't any fear in change, but instead a level of excitement of new or improved functionality.

[vitos]

This requirement is simply unworkable.....

Not, it's workable. Or You do need one command making one thing altogeter instead of one command depending at other one. There should not be ones depending at jumps of others. Especially if those ones pays to those others some money.

You need to think in advance what people may need, and invent Your stuff way that Your thing, which someone had rely on once, by Your grant and with some direct or indirect payment, will not change in previously declared means. Or You would stay with GPLs "we are not promising anything", and not to have any incomes.

Just imagine tomorrow Linux core developers will say "OK guys, we had invented new thing instead of float point values, it works much better, now we had told you, so change your things.". It's just unacceptable, while You never had coworked with real professionals.

[jwocky]

I worked for 25 years in software development. So, what could I possible know about software? The point is, you can't just make future because you have thusands of other programs out there relying on the old structures. Imagine for example, someone would tomorrow say, we don't have HTML anymore.
So, as we saw with HTML5, there will be always new things, some official, some unofficial but becoming a quasi standard, but the old stuff still has to work. Now, Vito claims for some reason I don't understand, that the basic claim a day has 24 hours is wrong. Unless he is on another planet, I am sure, it's true. Days have 24 hours. And people have in those 24 hours to eat, sleep, do theri daytime jobs, that leaves a very limited number of hours for Flightgear. This limits, obviously, development speed. If I have 8 hours/day and a 200 hour job to do on a plane, well, yeah, it will take 25 days, if I have on average only 2 hours per day, it will take 100 days.
So the reality check says, I can't do what I want, I have to stay with developments, I can do in a reasonable time. It's very simple math, neither Vitos not I can change that. That also poses the question what to do in that time. I can put it in a longterm development, invest 6 months, y ear, even two years, than I have what Vitos demands, a flightsim with a handful of wonderful planes. I went the other way and worked on user requests. Not perfect, but the users got what they wanted (except of one who wants always more for every plane and then rarely flies them because he is so glued to special plane). So, as a bottom line, the USA Tour and the planes I made for it (or participated, I was not alone in this), did more to crystalize a group of users than any other attempt, I have seen yet in FG.
So, here is the conclusion:

- we can't lure thousands of users, the MP infrastructure can't even handle it

- we can't have 50 planes on the screen at the same time, especially not so graphically demanding planes like Vitos or Richards. Sorry to say guys, your planes are wonderful, but to fly around when they are in the vicinity is a pain in the rear. Part of that is of course our outdated 3d engine, another part of it is, that many of our users, unlike Outterra users or FSX users, have very limited hardware.

None of thosre problems is accessible from our end. But we know something about flightsims in general and FG in particular: No flightsim with only a handful of awesome planes has survived on the market! None! And every day, when I look at the MP map, I see a variety of aircraft flying. Not just twenty 777s, or twenty A320s. Thus, while awesome planes are surely like a diamond in the crown, those handful of diamonds don't make what the crown is supposed to represent. To word this more clearly to avoid misunderstandings: A handful of glimmering stones don't make a king!

[vitos]

- we can't have 50 planes on the screen at the same time, especially not so graphically demanding planes like Vitos or Richards.

It's fixable easy by adding rough 3D mp model without anything inside, just not transparent canopy, and with simplified outer textures of smaller sizes. As I can remember, I made it with "MiG-15" model already. Anyway, I have not time to do so with "Su-15" - have just now quite more interesting objectives with it, and, actually, not interested in simplifying much, since "Su" do not fly at MP too often, and, moreover, not so many users installed it. For most its just orange line at "pilots list", not slowing anything even a bit. If I made some other model and meet "Su" at mp - then I would think its reasonable to make some mp model.

BTW, mp model could be used to bomb out other users who installed it at FG really. Just superheavy particles blow with number of particles increasing rapidly all the time, at mp model only. I did not made it, but it's possible. It also could be installed at MPClash missile - then missile catch would lead to real dropdown of target. "BOOM! You dead.". Again, not so reasonable to do so, since sometimes FG drops on itself, without any additions of that way.

As of ways to make things not worse but better - I said how it looks at my view, lotsa models/too complex models making I mean. You said how it looks at Yours. Time will tell who is right.