Free Flight, Free Speech

Hi All

I must admit the "FG Situation" is a bit out of hands.

Firstly, the core developers skipped FG 3.6 release. Secondly, the Terrain maintainer quits the project. Currently, the long standing server failure also has the custom landclasses unaccesible, which is another big hit for some of us trying to create scenery patches. The terrain generation for 3.0 now is on permanent hold... and thus, we are stuck with one of the most failed scenery versions in years (flooded airports or underground airports), indefinitely. This compounded to the fact that from Scenery 2.0 to today, many new airports have updated layouts; which we still don't get a way to easily enjoy.

While the FGMEMBERS-SCENERY repository provides some nice few places to explore, really the FG situation is that we depend on the terrastink infrastructure more than we should be interested on the current status of affairs...

I have at least 3 times, tried reaching Torsten Dreyer with a proposal to modularize scenery and make all this information possible to be hosted in a collection of between 500 to 600 scenery git repositories (10x10 degree tiles). If hosted in Github, we could potentially link the SVN protocol for github to get the scenery tiles as currently work in terrasync. I still believe this is not only a very viable solution, but one that does provide relief to the growing sizes of scenery database, by making the content modular. Which in addition provides advantage of a more easy update of smaller patches/tiles.

I don't think we are too far of making it possible, and it would certainly be a step in the right direction (of which, lately, the project has not been doing too many)

... Sorry for the Rant...
IH-COL

Pernament hold?!
Whoa!

Why not go ahead and do it?
Is it possible.
Despite getting them crosser with you....

Modularize scenery requires core changes. That's problem #1

And 2. Nobody here knows C++ well enough

You misunderstand the problem. Fg uses a very capable library known as boost and that can make the change in very few lines of code.

The issue is that changes there require recompilation, and if the official version does not accept it, then only alternative becomes distributing an alternative compiled fg that includes the missing feature.

Technically that is forking FG, and implies lots of infrastructure, maintenance, time and figths with the wannabe kings.

A steep road

But if the core changes happen within FG, we all win.

Especially after you being accused of forking FlightGear, we don't want to do that. Is that right?

That accusation is just another dirty lie by Thorsten.

I don't want to fork a software. Period. Not FG, nor other.


I'm just an user, not a software developer.

Exactly.
I wonder does he realize that everyone sees through his little tricks...

Well, obviously King Curtis doesn't!