Tu-144

Everything in connection with developing aircraft for FlightGear
vitos
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:59 am

Re: Tu-144

Postby vitos » Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:43 am

bomber wrote:But I do feel the root of it lies with the FG core developers and their desire to maintain a strong hold/control over what should be an open design environment but in reality is nothing of the sort.


It's quite easy - one guy who have rights on environment having some incomes from it. There is ads at site, and there is shop. If FG would develop on itself, if community would really have some authority, that guy would lose his incomes.

Since he has supermoderator rights both at development thread and forum - look, what these two is separated is strange already, is't it? - level just below him is full of people having in mind to get some income too, authority at least. And then OS lies are going from them. And at third level here we are, and some of us are brainwashed.

For example, all external stuff at Blender is calculated at Python. It's common language, GPL, there is tons of freeware procedures - why to invent own Nasal then at FG, which hangs on interpolators, etc? Quite simply, Python is not controllable.

At some other simulators You can just compile own libraries at any language, with ins and outs defined. C++ library is quite fast, it would run on any Hzs, with different own times for procedures, why not? Same thing.

It's not about flight - long time it's about control. If incomes was matter than at least it would develop faster. It's all just about powah.
Last edited by vitos on Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bomber
Posts: 1379
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Tu-144

Postby bomber » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:02 pm

I don't know about the income... all I know is that EVERYTHING is a struggle against the establishment in FG..

The establishment being Curt, Moderators, Core Devs and the Brainwashed.

This topic
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=30396
Is a perfect example of just how hard it is for a person, capable of improving FG to have an actual input.. the enthusiasm is knocked right out of them. I work in a design environment, I understand the prevailing culture has to encourage people to put ideas on the table without the feeling belittled if its not a workable idea... And getting to the understanding of if the ideas workable or not is rigorous but also delicate.
I'm not talking about delicate wall flowers here, but neither am I talking about the "I'm not doing it, I know better than you, and I'm not going to help you understand what I've done to make it harder for you to do what you want, and I know more than you" approach that we see all too often.

It's why I don't talk about my flight models on their forum, but instead attempt to get them to think about different aspects of flight.
"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 Mitchell

vitos
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:59 am

Re: Tu-144

Postby vitos » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:12 pm

bomber wrote:Is a perfect example of just how hard it is for a person, capable of improving FG to have an actual input.. the enthusiasm is knocked right out of them.


Because FG is not flight simulator actually but tool of conceit. Just look at these "sophisticated, professional", and then compare it with some real simulator. It's just not worthing my time to compare FG at now with MSFS fifteen years ago, I do not even say about some really professional simulators.

Me myself came with "just tell me where to look" lotsa times, to development list, to forum, to JSB list. Only one place I really had some help was Russian forum, and AndersG at IRC was true one. At all other cases I turned to solve anything alone, and avoid questioning, which is intolerable with any real development. So, it's all known.

As of normal people - they just can feel the smell, that's why from billions living at Earth now only twenty are flying at FG mp now. Twenty to billions! With project anyone can install for free!

Correct OS simulator project should be made completely other way - participants are making one thing at time altogether. One model for example - and until state it could not be made better.

It needs other core - with taking in mind all future solutions as space flight.

It's got to be user oriented - aim should be product which can be installed and used by some kid.

So on. I do not think FG would become this. FG is just sandbox with own king of the hill and vassals, those prevents transformation to something as that, even as fork, since GPL not protects forks.

Thus new one will be some other project completely, made way making impossible to steal something from it - as to take even free model of MSFS, as Yuric's "Tu" was initially, is comparable task with making completely new one, as I did with "Su".

So, if some other OS simulator will be made completely other way, without taking parts from FG, parts of it will not be ripped to FG, even if these was GPL. There is no people left at FG who could make it after all.

User avatar
IAHM-COL
Posts: 6452
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 3:43 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Contact:

Re: Tu-144

Postby IAHM-COL » Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:58 pm

Hi Vitos! Welcome to the Forum

I repeat all you said above. It is (in a way unfortunate) that you are so correct on your statements above.
I could qoute you paragraph per paraghraph and say: Hear! Hear! Vitos.

But I am not going to do that redundancy. Those interested can just read you above. I limit myself to a few additional comments:

vitos wrote:
IAHM-COL wrote:You can call them Malware if you wish ;P


If You are that good, why did't You made comparable model alone, as I did, and then share it under GPL terms?

It took me years to make my model at its level, and I do not want to share if for free with people who at first calls me "fool" at public, and then takes my ideas without mentioning me. I do not even mention making money at ads plus moderating out any mentions of it.


You are correct! I apologize, and withdraw completely my statement.
Your Su15 can't be considered malware under any assumption of the term. Malware is software that does stuff the user does not know about/nor does want. The Su15 on the contrary is actually one of the best developments for FGFS. And it does not do anything unintended, as far as I can see.

I tried to reffer to proprietary addons for FG. But that is not a malware, so it is wrong to call them such.
The Tu-144 is intriguing on something additional: It's liberty on using GPL code within propietary, and that's something that definitely needs revision: But not by me, for sure.

As of Your bunch, it's GPL, and nothing keeps such people from taking ideas and parts from it. And it depends on FG anyway - changing couple of basic properties names, some shader calls, etc, at new FG version would make all models from it unusable. Again and again - while You can not do anything in response.

Yes. I am not trying to avoid people taking ideas or parts from GPL software. Nor I cant. Much of that software is not written by me at all, and as such I don't own such copyrights.
It does depend on FG, and therefore you'll see me rejecting any postulate suggesting FGMEMBERS is a fork of FlightGear.
They could change FG as to be incompatible with its own planes. That's true. And they aren't doing it so far; in part because that will be braking FG for all other aircrafts too: FGMEMBERS includes FGADDon and multiple other "venerable" hangars.

They can look into Your GPL code, find weak spots in it, something which uses features others don't, and then hit at You - legally completely.


On this side of the problem, it seems they indeed have targeted braking FG to avoid FGMEMBERS's only planes to properly function. So, I don't call them innocent. Take JWocky's JPack, which stopped working properly since FGMEMBERS inception. and all those "nasal does not allow simlink" errors they miscoded inside FG to limit users freedom to locate files where one pleases. That, I think, was a misfired attempt to only cause havoc for FGMEMBERS: Misfired, because it really was a blow to their own heads.


GPL could be heaven, and could be hell. It depends on people. With FG its hell, and You cant' help it.


Yes. It was a painful lesson to learn that I have to learn on my own flesh. Others see it and remain deluded (or brainwashed).

Just to try to fly that "Su-15" model - at least to read wiki page and manual to figure out what it is - and read forums about these three models, taking in mind a lot of what which said was moderated out later.


I was there. I saw your post about the Su15 dissapear by request of Thorsten. That was quite disheartening.
I had only wanted you to release the Su15 in a way that allows FGMEMBERS to legally redistribute. I have extended you an invitation before, and I'll do that again: Would you consider releasing the Su15 as Creative Commons BY-NC-SA-ND Non-derivatives?

It's quite easy - one guy who have rights on environment having some incomes from it.


That's exactly correct. I did not know this at all, when I first proposed FGMEMBERS as a valid alternative for FG. Then Someone told me I couldn't do that ethically, which was a surprise to me. They argued I needed to first present it on the Devel List, which I did. Then that guy you are talking about shot it down, vetoed the proposal, and then went as far as banning me from being able to send information to both the devel list and the forum.

And then they began a paranoia and propaganda war to try to destroy FGMEMBERS at all cost.

Wasn't FlightGear GPL was the only question left to be ask.

And JWocky's answer to me was: you are causing that one guy to loose money.

I found trouble understanding that statement, that you point again above. But I now see it.

For example, all external stuff at Blender is calculated at Python. It's common language, GPL, there is tons of freeware procedures - why to invent own Nasal then at FG, which hangs on interpolators, etc? Quite simply, Python is not controllable.

At some other simulators You can just compile own libraries at any language, with ins and outs defined. C++ library is quite fast, it would run on any Hzs, with different own times for procedures, why not [in FlightGear]? Same thing.


Yup. That's all I need to say.

I also had experience myself the utter like of help on the forum when problems present or when you need to understand something on how to develop for FG. They wont tell you with transparency. And the documentation is nonexistent and most, and terribly useless where available.

So, if some other OS simulator will be made completely other way, without taking parts from FG, parts of it will not be ripped to FG, even if these was GPL. There is no people left at FG who could make it after all.


This is something we have put on the table a few times. To completely part ways. I have been uninterested to take such task, actually.
It's just too much for my own interest.

But It will be something really great to see happening. A new GPL flightsimulator that is far from all the political mayhem behind the FG closed curtains. That'll be lovely!!
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc

R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?

User avatar
IAHM-COL
Posts: 6452
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 3:43 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Contact:

Re: Tu-144

Postby IAHM-COL » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:00 pm

One more thing, Vitos

I couldn't possibly make a model as beautiful as your SU15.
Not myself.

I am a terribly aweful bad 3D developer.
Check, per example the Jumbolino: The only model I am fully responsible of its 3d in and out.

You'll notice as a modeller I am a dwarf, on every aspect you are a giant.

https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/Jumbolino
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc

R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?

vitos
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:59 am

Re: Tu-144

Postby vitos » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:20 pm

IAHM-COL wrote:Would you consider releasing the Su15 as Creative Commons BY-NC-SA-ND Non-derivatives?


Well, something of this is possible actually. But only after I would finish it finally and turn for something else. At now, I do have some improvement ideas going. For example, later version works some systems via nasal - it's ugly solution, but it has 8fps right now while we are conversing, at 10years old PC, and with missiles working.

So, it's possible to set some appropriate common license on it, which could mean just same as current one, heh. But not right now.

As of Tu-144 - I am actually conversing with guy who makes it. As I can see, he just learned by my mistakes.

User avatar
IAHM-COL
Posts: 6452
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 3:43 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Contact:

Re: Tu-144

Postby IAHM-COL » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:23 pm

That's a great news to begin the day!!!! (its morning time for me)

And I am so looking forward to your new release.
It will be great to see your progress and ideas on some thread here.

No one tries to shut down development this side of the river.

So, it's possible to set some appropriate common license on it, which could mean just same as current one, heh. But not right now.

Yes. The critical thing is that redistribution allowance would be required for me to have it redistributed, logically :D

As of Tu-144 - I am actually conversing with guy who makes it. As I can see, he just learned by my mistakes.


That's the real proof of intelligence.
Learning of other's mistakes.

Those that learn only of own mistakes are stubborn.

The Tu144 is a real awesome aircraft. The Russian concorde. I dont' understand his license at all. But maybe he could consider a license that allows redistribution? I doubt it since the way he phrases his license implies he does not want to see his model redistributed.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc

R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?

vitos
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:59 am

Re: Tu-144

Postby vitos » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:27 pm

IAHM-COL wrote:No one tries to shut down development this side of the river.


Well, look, I suppose one day same was with FG.

User avatar
IAHM-COL
Posts: 6452
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 3:43 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Contact:

Re: Tu-144

Postby IAHM-COL » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:29 pm

FG is a pyramid. Which makes it structurally different to us.

The more development and more people jumping at new stuff for us the better.

But if you see that changing on the wrong direction, let us know and help us avoiding that. It will be a sad thing to fall in the same traps.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc

R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?

vitos
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:59 am

Re: Tu-144

Postby vitos » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:34 pm

IAHM-COL wrote:It will be a sad thing to fall in the same traps.


Then I would highly recommend to make one model altogether.


Return to “Aircraft Development”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests