Hi fellow wiki editors!

To help newly registered users get more familiar with the wiki (and maybe older users too) there is now a {{Welcome to the wiki}} template. Have a look at it and feel free to add it to new users discussion pages (and perhaps your own).

I have tried to keep the template short, but meaningful. /Johan G

User talk:HHS

From FlightGear wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello again Heiko

Iv started working on the md500e, heres a screenshot from blender of the progress so far, http://imagebin.org/58537, its going to take me quite some time! i definitely want it to be as detailed as possible, especially in the cockpit! I was hoping you and/or Maik might want to give me a hand with the fdm? would also like it to fly as realistic as possible! But like i said, its going to take me a while! just wanted to let you know what im up to, and maybe when the time comes we can get it to fly nicely to!

Regards Daniel


Ja ja... Die Pflegel unter sich, was?! Ich schaue mich hier gerade noch ein wenig um und entdecke die eine oder andere Baustelle...

Aber ist noch nicht wichtig. Erstmal schauen und fliegen (lernen). Ich arbeite gerade an meiner PPL-V (virtual ;-) )und mache mir Gedanken über eine Verdrahtung des FluSi nach aussen, sprich ein Homecockpit... Das dauert aber noch. Wo kommst Du denn her? --LarsP 16:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi HHS, been a long time no talked! Have you seen this thread: http://equipe-flightgear.forumactif.com/t911-ec-135 ? Hope everything is fine with you. All the best. F-ojac 15:51, 8 December 2012 (EST)

Please let's at least try to keep the village pump page clean ...

Again: http://wiki.flightgear.org/FlightGear_wiki:Manual_of_Style#Specific_recommendations.
Then: Please keep your thoughts about the AI system, my intention etc. out here. They do not belong into this discussion here!
The quotations don't show the complete date - even if at the end you still have to verify every source. That is what I wanted to show you. The fact is, Detlef is wrong here (ground vehicles don't bank), but people reading those quotes in this official wiki thinks it is true. The same Emilian already told you. It seems not that you know much about academic research and writing? A lot of it applies here as well when providing information, especially for a wiki.
--HHS (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
look, I was really hoping that we could do without any personal attacks meanwhile - like I said several times, I have nothing against you and I do appreciate your contributions.
and as has been discussed behind the scenes already: I agree that it would be great if we were able to apply wp guidelines/best practices here (which are NOT based on academics BTW!), but unfortunately we're lacking the manpower to do so.
Likewise, it would be awesome if we could apply scientific/research guidelines, but we cannot - and the wiki is not just an "encyclopedia", it is just as much a collaborative platform - one helping to streamline collaboration, not just by creating/maintaining articles, but also by preserving and presenting discussions spread across months, and even years. The devel list, forum and issue tracker are fairly poor tools for this in comparison.
Besides, you can expect that most contributors with a professional background in software development will usually hold at least one academic degree in CS or a related field like aerodynamics, maths or physics - so it would be kinda moot, and poor style, to suggest that you'd be the only one "qualified" to judge what qualifies as "academic" (if that's your requirements) and what doesn't.
As I have confirmed a number of times already: those pages are not even remotely trying to be "scientific", "research" or supposed to have any "academic value".
And I also said that I don't consider them having encyclopedic value.
Primarily, those are summaries - i.e. collections of quotes to serve as stubs that are grown over time. And that can be community-edited/-maintained over time.
While we should appreciate the fact that FlightGear is a joint effort that brings people together with hugely varying backgrounds, I wouldn't overestimate your own "academic background" here:
Obviously, you are unlikely to see people with a Master's degree in computer science/maths or physics lecturing at a nursing school about doing CPR, putting in a central line or how to do fluid management in burn victims via inntraosseous access.
Thus, I would hope to keep your own background in mind, and in perspective, here - or at least back up statements that would otherwise seem unsubstantiated.
We have people involved in the project who hold multiple degrees, including even several PhDs - don't you think you are embarrassing yourself here by trying to establish academic standards for flight sim documentation just because you are hoping to become a teacher at a nursing school even though nobody said that we should be having scientific/academic standards in the first place ?
As you may have noticed, people's contributions are generally not evaluated based on their academic track record, but based on their merits - and at some point, also on a track record of related contributions - which obviously makes you an authority when it comes to 3D modeling, Blender and helicopters - but doesn't automatically put you in a position to judge the merits of unrelated contributions, and comments made on the devel list or the forum in completely unrelated fields. If something is wrong, then it needs to be fixed - after all, this is a wiki: it would take you ~20 seconds to fix something (even if that just means removing a whole paragraph), instead of starting, and continuing, a childish flame war that would not suggest any kind of academic background at alll.
In the scope of this particular discussion, this also inevitably means that we'll certainly honor all feedback provided, but as you can see in other areas (sg/fg and fgdata), those who do, get to decide what to do, and how to do it (so far, Gijs & Johan_G are the only ones to actually address one of the issues here). Which ends up meaning that you can be the change you want to see, but you cannot ask others to do your work for you, let alone expect active contributors to be told by "lurkers" what to do. Unfortunately, things don't work that way.
Having quality standards, applying/enforcing them and having article ratings is a good idea - but doesn't automatically address the concrete need served by those "collections of quotes", i.e. targeted at people wanting to get involved looking for related pointers.
Seriously, I would appreciate it if we could keep this constructive - if you're having a problem understanding what is said, I encourage you to check out google translate or post in your native language - maybe that will make it easier to bring your point across without getting argumentative.
Just imagine for a second that a software developer would show up on a nursing/EMT forum and question all kinds of statements made by EMPs, and then try to substantiate his words by saying that he's teaching CS at a community college - just because some quotes may be outdated meanwhile - would you take that someone seriously ?
Honestly, it is beyond me why you prefer to have this discussion instead of either removing said quotes or simply getting in touch with DFaber to see if there's a misunderstanding involved here or not. Your whole demeanor would suggest that you are not interested in solving the problem but winning a debate ? Personally, I could not care less: I don't mind seeing those quality standards enforced, I merely said explicitly that we cannot just remove those quotes without coming up with a workaround that works equally well for presenting and preserving frequently raised topics, to provide for a graceful entry point for newcomers interested in certain topics/areas of the project. And please keep in mind that many of those articles are about features/areas that I am not the slightest bit involved in - so when I spend 20 minutes summarizing repeated discussions, it's mainly so that we can harness the little manpower we have.
--Hooray (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


Ich hoffe das hier ist die richtige Seite um auf dein Kommentar in meinem User Talk zu antworten (ich hab das mit dem Wiki noch nicht ganz so verstanden).

Zum 1. Punkt: Ich hab darum gebeten, dass die 727-Developer sich melden, weil ich nicht herausfinden konnte, wer diese sind, sodass ich sie nicht kontaktieren konnte.
Nun beschreibst du im Rest noch wie viel Arbeit du in die DO328 gesteckt hast. Ich kann jedoch nicht verstehen warum du ein Flugzeug, dass schon so viel Zeit "verbraucht" hat, einfach löschen willst. So wie ich das verstehe, ist das Flugzeug noch nicht perfekt (ich bin mir ziemlich sicher, dass es sehr schwierig bis unmöglich ist, ein perfektes FDM in einem Flugsimulator zu erstellen), jedoch schon in einem sehr guten Zustand. Also wäre es doch sehr schade, dass dieses Projekt einfach gelöscht wird, obwohl schon so viel Zeit hineingesteckt wurde. Wenn du aus beruflichen oder sonstigen Gründen keine Zeit/Kraft hast, dieses Projekt zu koordinieren, dann gib doch bitte die bisher erstellten Daten an die Community weiter, damit deine Arbeit nicht einfach im Nichts verschwindet. Viele Grüße

Es sind nicht viele Entwickler im Forum, ich selber z.B. lese nur ab und zu, bin nicht mehr regsitriert und werde es auch nicht mehr. Gerade wegen den dämlichen Diskussionen. Für Kontaktanfragen zu Modellen ist die Mailing-list der entsprechnde Ort, da fast jeder Dveloiper die Mailing-List verfolgt.
Ich habe nur die Repository der Dornier 328 gelöscht, die Daten sind auf meinem Rechner. Was gestoppt ist, ist die Entwicklung selber. Klar ist ein perfektes FDM nicht möglich. Aber es sollte zumindest plausibel sein (flugfähig --> nutzbar --> plausibel --> realistisch--> entspricht in allem dem Original)
Daten an die Community weitergeben habe ich anfangs erachtet. Musste aber bei anderen feststellen, das oft auch Unfug mit betrieben wurde. Ich habe eben viel Arbeit reingesteckt, und die möchte ich dann aber auch nicht mißbraucht sehen. Und dann ist da was, was in der ganzen Diskussion um FGMembers eben vergessen wird (wobei Detlef Faber dies sogar deutlich nannte): es geht um Austausch und Kommunikation und einen gewissen Respekt gegenüber den Autoren und deren Zielen. Was beabsichtigte der Originalautor, was für Ziele hatte er, und welche Informationen hat er gesammelt? Das fehlt mir in der Community. OpenSource heißt nicht einfach blind etwas übernehmen.
Momentan warte ich mal ab, was sich tut. Ich sehe es so, Wenn jemand ernsthaft das Modell weiterentwicklen will, dann wird er sich melden.
Grüße HHS
Darf man fragen, welcher "Unsinn" mit deinen Daten angestellt wurde? Und in welchem Zustand sich das Flugzeug im Moment nun eigentlich befindet?
Viele Grüße
z.B. eine ältere Version der EC130 B4 habe ich unter GNU GPL an jemanden für ein Spiel weitergegeben. Kurz danach tauchte das Model unter völlig inkompatiblen Lizenzen und Autorennamen woanders auf. Ist zwar schön, wenn das Model so beliebt ist, aber trotzdem eben ein Plagiat. OpenSource-Produkte sind nie vor so etwas sicher, das ist mir klar. Aber profitieren sollte das eigene Projekt trotzdem vom Model, bevor damit Schindluder getrieben wird.
wäre es vielleicht eine Lösung das Modell zunächst unter eine strikte Lizenz zu stellen, die jede Weitergabe oder Veränderung ausdrücklich verbietet, solange das FDM noch nicht gut genug ist? So würde deine tolle Arbeit zumindest nicht Sinnlos gewesen sein und nur so ist es für Andere überhaupt möglich, sich das FDM anzuschauen.
Viele Grüße,
Leider nicht möglich, da ich etliche Code-Schnipsel von anderen unter GNU-GPL stehenden Flugzeugen drin habe. Ich war aber in der Zwischenzeit fähig das FDM so zu gestalten, dass sie nun den mir bekannten Daten entspricht. Zum aktuellen Status: FDM soweit komplett; prop-files brauchen an einer bestimmten Stelle noch etwas Arbeit; EICAS fehlt, Overheadpanel fehlt. In 3d-Sachen bin ich fix, aber zur Zeit bin ich mit der Cessna 182 S sowie beruflichen Dingen ganz gut ausgelastet, so dass es noch ein wenig dauern kann. Aber aufgeben will ich das Teil definitiv nicht, zuviel Zeit investiert und ich hänge daran. Und wenn der franz. User Patten es mir erlaubt, dann wird das FMC seiner Citation X verbaut.
Viele Grüße
Heiko--HHS (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2016 (EDT)
die Sache mit dem FDM ist ja schonmal erfreulich. Hoffentlich hast du ein gutes Backup deiner Daten gemacht. Was hältst du von der Idee einen Wettbewerb zu starten: Wenn es jemand schafft ein gutes Overheadpanel zu erschaffen, dann veröffentlichst du das Modell, ansonsten müssen wir warten? Ich bin zwar nicht sonderlich gut in solchen Sachen, aber vielleicht gibt es ja jemanden der talentiert ist, für den das ein Anreiz ist.
Viele Grüße,
Moin mal wieder,
ich finde zwar toll wie detailliert und genau du dieses Flugzeug machst, jedoch habe ich ehrlich gesagt weder Zeit noch Geduld weitere Jahre zu warten (wobei ich wahrscheinlich mittlerweile von FG weg sein werde),
also habe ich mich entschlossen, das Ganze selbst in die Hand zu nehmen. Ich habe die Dornier 328, das Fuselage modell, ein relativ gutes Cockpit, ein fliegbares FDM auf Basis der DO228 hinbekommen. Das ist zwar
weit weg davon, realistisch zu sein, aber immerhin habe ich es und kann endlich damit fliegen.
Im Moment plane ich auch, dies zu veröffentlichen, jedoch mit Hinweis darauf, dass dies eine undetaillierte Temporärversion ist und du dabei bist ein bessere Modell zu erschaffen (oder soll ich das weglassen? :P)
Sobald deine DO dann raus ist werde ich meine dann auch wieder runter nehmen. Ich hoffe mal du hast nichts gegen das Ganze hier :D Viel Glück noch bei allem!! D-ECHO (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2016 (EST)
Kannst Du mir den Link zu dem 2007-Hinweis zur Dornier 328 mal geben? Ich kann mich nicht erinnern damals schon mal an der Dornier 328 gearbeitet zu haben. Ich hatte da ja gerade mal die EC135 und die ASK21 in Arbeit....
Tatsächlich arbeite ich seit 2011 daran. Dazwischen kamen mir immer Projekte, die gerade besser liefen: EC 130 B4, meine berufliche Karriere, die Cessna 182 S.
Das Du ungeduldig bist, glaub ich Dir. Ein dt. User, der ein paar Zeilen weiter oben geschrieben hat, hat mir nun seine Hilfe angeboten und erstellt gerade die EICAS Screens mit der Canvas-Technik. Mein PC musste ich letzte Woche nun komplett plattmachen, und das Betriebssystem komplett neu aufspielen. Dafür läuft er jetzt wieder flüssig und ich kann wieder am Overhead-Panel weiterarbeiten.
Kurz: Wenn Du wissen willst, wie es weitergeht - dann kennst Du ja meine Repos auf Github! ;-)Es ist aber noch alles WIP und noch nicht wirklich stabil.
Siehe Issue-Liste.
Also noch nicht herumposaunen. Wenn sie halbwegs stabil ist, wird ohnehin ein Newsletter-Eintrag geschrieben.
--HHS (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2016 (EST)
Moin zurück :D
Das ist ja schön, ich schätze mal dass du auf meine vorherige Nachricht antwortest, ich habe sie in der Zwischenzeit geändert ;) Jedenfalls werde ich dann erstmals noch nichts von meiner Version veröffentlichen
PS: Zu dem Link, es war doch nur die Topic von 2007, der Post selbst war von 2013 :D
Wie gesagt: auf Github findest Du die Dornier 328, ich finde sie nur momentan noch nicht für FGAddon geeignet, arbeite aber dran.
--HHS (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2016 (EST)
Ach, dann habe ich das falsch verstanden, vielen vielen Dank! :D Ich habe das natürlich gleich mal ausprobiert und ja, es fühlt sich vom Fluggefühl wirklich unglaublich realistisch an und das Modell ist natürlich
in allen Belangen umwerfend :D Nochmals Danke!! D-ECHO (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2016 (EST)

Your recent ASW20 screenshots

File:ASW20_summerday1.jpg, File:ASW20 wingview.jpg and File:ASW20 summerday.jpg.

They look exceptionally realistic! Since I am on a rather weak laptop and can not run FlightGear with all settings maxed out, I enjoy amazing screenshots like that even more. FlightGear sure has gotten better looking over the years. :-)

Johan G (Talk | contribs) 00:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I must admit I edited the images in brightness and contrast.
I'm using a rather weak laptop as well. Tree range set down to 3000, no random buildings and objects, cloud density 25%, with all shader sliders maxed out I only get 7-10fps. Unfortunately my desktop pc isn't much better any more and I'm always surprised to see people with 65fps everything maxed out. FlightGear looks indeed really nice, but that costs a lot of perfomance.
--HHS (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


Just saw the last post with the great screenshots... perhaps it's an idea to uploading them to the main Wikipedia FlightGear page? Many of those screenshots are several years old and it's nice to present a up-to-date image of the software :) I'm not quite able to squeeze out enough of my setup to produce the same results.

This unsigned comment was added by Manfred (Talk | contribs) 17:03, 5 May 2015‎ (UTC)


Moin HHS mal wieder :D ich würde gerne die ASK21, die du 2006 gemacht hast, verbessern und wollte dich daher fragen, ob das für dich ok ist und ob du noch an dem Model arbeitest (damit nichts doppelt gemacht wird ;)) LG D-ECHO

MBB Bo 105

If you want to run me down, then I'm sure you can find much better examples than this to work with. Maybe I have offended you somewhere else? Whatever. The quote (extract) does NOT state that the 45% back cyclic was not "completly true and realistic" but (basically for mechanical reasons of a self-centering computer joystick) that it made it a difficult choice for a beginner. My comments are also an excerpt from a longer discussion, the context of which is not made obvious here.

"I believe the Bo105 also had AFCS" is used as an example of one of the "false assumptions about the realism". How does a passing comment on a message board achieve such significance? A mistaken belief (of mine) that could have easily and diplomatically corrected?

The force-trim instructions appear to have been added to the Wiki after my comment (Revision as of 13:52, 6 December 2015). Strange, that. Could have just said something like

Thanks to Warty for pointing out that the typical 45% back cyclic makes it a difficult choice for a beginner. However, this can be made easier by using what creates a similar effect to the follow up trim system described in the MBB training manual. FGFS comes with a generic AutoTrim-function . . . .

And then there's the digs against FGUK (relating to a different aircraft). You seem to be using this Wiki as a platform for a personal vendetta. Is that what it's meant to be for? Hopefully, you will edit the offending page yourself rather than me having to do it for you.


Warty (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

Yes, I should have known that the way I cited your forum entry and my answer could you and others take the wrong way. I'm sorry for that.
But who can know that your comment was an excerpt from a longer discussion? I couldn't see it. Maybe the same way you could not see that your regarding forum entry perfectly summed up the confusion and feedback about the characteristics of the BO105-fdm I often recieved. So it was for me a good reason to point to the realism of the fdm. Similar like Hooray usually does it. And your comment was good enough to prompt finally adding the force trim instructions. Nothing strange about.
Again, I'm sorry, it wasn't meant to provoke you.
BUT: I percieve your message here as very agressive and blackmailing.
Seriously, Do you really think your tone is appropriate to this issue? Especially as we never met before.
And this "the digs against FGUK (relating to a different aircraft)." dissapoints me a lot, as it is indefinite and vague. Which aircraft? When? Where? I can't take this serious. The same about the "vendetta".
But I really hope you that you didn't forget, that it was actually me who modelled and then handed over the Panavia Tornado to FGUK. And provided help to your first helicopters. That even some fdms of your first helicopters are based on my works.
Is this the way you say Thank You at FGUK? Since you seems to represent FGUK here, it cast a bit damning light on your group for me now.
I think I have a way how we can solve this issue. But I want answers to my questions above and a big sorry before I tone down the regarding part, so it doesn't provoke you any more.
--HHS (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

"The 5% of the FGUK Version's EC145 is unrealistic btw. This helicopter (EC145 is just a maketing name. The real name is BK117 C2) has the same, but scaled, rotor head and rigging like the BO105. So it should have the same 45% back cyclic like the BO105. According to to Walter Bittners "Flugmechanik der Hubschrauber" this is the case. Depending on CoG, loads, and flight states the position of the cyclic will vary a lot anyway, so a 0% cyclic at lift-off would make problems on other flight states like fast cruise."
what has that got to do with the Bo105??
"Since you seems to represent FGUK here" - No, no, no, no! I absolutely do NOT represent FGUK here. I won't comment any more on your thoughts about FGUK.
You used me as a source without first checking/confirming that my comments were a valid source for your argument.
It was just something to hang your argument on - cherry picking. I know this is not Wikipedia but it's still shoddy editing. I don't need your approval to make changes so I'm hoping that you will do the decent thing and make the changes so that I don't need to.
Warty (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2016 (EDT)
So I guessed right what has offended you. If I had just quoted the (your) lines without naming the author behind you would never make this big large noise about. But when you don't represent FGUK here - why did you accuse me of the digs against FGUK?
At least I'm able to act in an adult way and able to admit having made a mistake, and wiling to correct. In the opposite I don't see any diplomatic behavior from your side and still waiting for apologize for your rude tone.
The regarding passage will be rewritten now, then I don't want you to hear and see your again anymore!
I will send a headup to the Admins here as well, to have them keeping an eye on you. The way you act here scares me.
--HHS (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2016 (EDT)