User talk:HHS

From FlightGear wiki
Revision as of 10:03, 5 May 2015 by Manfred (Talk | contribs) (Screenshots: new section)

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

Moinsen!

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)

Rembrandt

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)

DO328

Hi!
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
D-ECHO

Hi,
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
Hi,
Darf man fragen, welcher "Unsinn" mit deinen Daten angestellt wurde? Und in welchem Zustand sich das Flugzeug im Moment nun eigentlich befindet?
Viele Grüße
D-ECHO

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.
Cheers
--HHS (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Screenshots

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.