User talk:I4dnf: Difference between revisions

From FlightGear wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(16 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Your aircraft removal request (02/2013) ==
== Upload wizard ==
Hi, I'm referring to your request at [http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php?title=IAR_80&oldid=58181]. I do know that previous contributors from France have made similar requests in the past (and that they were complied with), but according to the GPL there's really no right to revoke our GPL'ed contributions like that. According to my understanding, Curt has only complied with such requests in the past out of mutual respect and politeness, and to prevent even more disturbing flame wars on the devel list (cf GrTux). The point of the GPL is all about freedom, freedom which you are trying to take away from FlightGear by acting like that now. Reserving the right to have contributions revoked at a later time makes the whole GPL kinda moot, right ? Honestly, even if I were to go to jail tomorrow, were to be overrun by a bus or died in an airplane crash next week, none of this should have any effect on my past FlightGear contributions, especially the ones that were explicitly licensed under the GPL or under a similarly permissive license (which applies to all wiki contributions). Obviously some people have a tendency to get all dramatic once they disagree with other key contributors and feel inclined to either abandon the project temporarily or even revoke their contributors altogether, we've seen that more than once in the past - and it's probably going to happen again. After all, we are all human beings and getting emotional is a part of it (for some moreso than others obviously). But at the end of the day, this is obviously the most immature way to respond in such situations, and it's also the most harmful modus operandi for the project, simply because it automatically questions all our previously GPL'ed FlightGear contributions as a whole, and thus the point of the GPL in general, and the point of the FlightGear project in its entirety. Disagreeing with other community members (no matter if artwork contributors or core developers) should never be an incentive to stop contributing to FG, or to even consider dropping FlightGear as a whole - let alone revoking past contributions. Obviously none of this is to belittle your awesome contributions,  but just imagine for a second that we (i.e. the project) were seriously to adopt this practice and comply with such requests in the future: It would basically be the end of FlightGear, especially once not "only" artwork contributors but also core developers were making such requests. Please just try to imagine for a second how FlightGear's development model (and the GPL it is based on) really works, and then ask yourself if we really want to encourage having a development model where our key contributors may reserve the right to act like teenagers or even drama queens just to have their own agenda enforced, because they find themselves not in agreement with other important contributors ? If you are serious about revoking your contributions, please get in touch with Curt, who will have the final say obviously -because he's the one who manages the website. Otherwise, I'll just assume that this merely an attempt to get more attention, which is obviously a long-standing instrument among some FlightGear contributors under certain circumstances. I sincerely hope that you'll reconsider your decision and refrain from deleting any of your contributions here. All the best, --[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] 14:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
: I am the original author of that work, it is not used by anything else, hasn't been changed by anyone else in the current form, it contains controversial content, and I don't intend to maintain it any longer.
: Until the copyright law changes, it is within my right to revoke something that I've created, and which I no longer find suitable for public use, or that misrepresents my intentions. Without the copyright law, and it's effects, there would be no GPL, so the GPL point is rather moot. Had it had any additions from some other author, I would have left it in. Note that everything else that I've worked on is still available, since I'm not the sole author.
: And yes, you can see it as a form of protest, if you want, against the anarchy, and lack of resolution that's governing FG right now, and the way that some people are alowed to just plow ahead. I doubt anyone will notice, or do anything to prevent this from happening again in the future.
: But as it is now I have no reason, nor motivation to continue. Thanks...
: [[User:I4dnf|I4dnf]] 14:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


:: Hi, I do understand that you are frustrated and maybe disappointed. We've all felt like that, and most FlightGear contributors have gone through this at least once because of FlightGear's "development model". But please keep in mind that you are basically asking for a consensus, i.e. a formal decision to support a certain point of view (yours in this case). And you are doing that even though you are fully aware of the way the FlightGear project works, and has been working for over a decade. There's no single entity to provide the form of support and encouragement that you are looking for now, and you surely know that very well. You have been a contributor for many years, so you've seen similar situations in the past, with other people being involved. And you have probably seen other people disagreeing with eachother, very strongly. And you have surely also seen some really instrumental and important people acting in a similar way, who were obviously also just trying to enforce a change, out of disappointment. Changes are not going to happen like that obviously, we know that from experience. But the unfortunate truth is that whenever some long-term contributor decides to draw this very card, i.e. to threaten abandoning the project, quitting and possibly even revoking his/her contributions otherwise, you are giving much more power to the very people you are disagreeing with. I don't know if you were around when the PLIB to OSG migration was performed, or when the property tree vector additions were controversially discussed - but whenever someone acted like this, it didn't go too well, we have countless of other examples for this. Abandoning the project or revoking contributions has never been a fruitful option obviously to be honest. So, I'm really surprised that you are even trying this now. Just look at other people who have left the project for similar reasons, and who were truly instrumental because they wrote code and reviewed patches - i.e. core developers: The original goals have never been accomplished, but the very people that they disagreed with in the first place, ended up with "more power" in the end because of that. As you know, there's no real "project manager" or even a "project coordinator" - the FlightGear project is self-managed and it is largely driven and steered by the people who are active contributors. Whenever we decide to stop contributing to the project because of something someone else has said, we are giving much more power to that particular individual than he/she deserves, no matter of the track record of contributions. Honestly, you have been around long enough to know that some of the most-seasoned core developers and other instrumental contributors have openly disagreed very strongly with other key contributors, yet, they somehow managed to stick around despite such irritations. I really believe that we are putting harm to the project whenever we are pursuing the option of revoking our contributions just because of some more or less strong disagreements.--[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] 16:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi,


::: well, maybe the project should self-manage itself out of this. Or maybe it's past what is called critical mass, and should reconsider the way it works. Look at the big OSS projects, they all have some form of structured management (however gentle that may be). I'm not going to make any profecy like some other contributors did... but this trend doesn't bode well. Well if that's what the project wants that's what it gets. In any other project of this size, this situation would have rang alarm bells a long time ago, here we prefer to shove everything under the rug, and avoid confronting anybody, for fear he might get upset, and we use double standards all the time. Thanks but I won't have any of that anymore, and no, I'm not looking for appreciation for my work, my presence as a contributor and my contributions certainly affect someone else's mojo, so it's better that I remove myself, and ofending contributions....
What's the matter with the upload wizard? I am aware of a 1 MB file limit (some issue with the latest version of MediaWiki in combination wwith the wizard), but your screenshots are smaller...
:::[[User:I4dnf|I4dnf]] 16:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


== Images ==
Cheers,
[[User:Gijs|Gijs]] ([[User talk:Gijs|talk]]) 12:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Thankyou for editing the pages and everything I4dnf!
:Hi,


I honestly didn't know how to do all that! :D
:It just sits there on adding files to upload, spinner spinning. Probably some weird javascript that doesn't like my browser. It would be nice if there would be a less fancy 'wizard', or a no wizard option, but I suppose there isn't.


I shall try and edit the names of those images!


I just wanted to contribute as much as I could to this Newsletter to contribute something back to the FG Community.
:LE: Ok, disabling javascript on the page removes the innane wizard. good enough for me :)
:Cheers
:[[User:I4dnf|I4dnf]] ([[User talk:I4dnf|talk]]) 12:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


How do I change the file names of the images?
:: Would be appreciated if you could post the error. Works fine here on three different browsers...
:: The plain upload form is still available at [[Special:Upload]] btw, but please do adhere to the templates as explained at [[Help:Upload]].
:: [[User:Gijs|Gijs]] ([[User talk:Gijs|talk]]) 16:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


----
:::There is no error to post. The spinner to the right of the filename is moving, but there's no upload happening.
Hello I4dnf,
:::Thanks for the no-js page info, and I hope I've added the correct templates.
:::[[User:I4dnf|I4dnf]] ([[User talk:I4dnf|talk]]) 23:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


I just looked through "''Modeling Guidelines draft''" and especially "''Texturing Guidelines''" and I'm a bit confused now.
== Issues with the Failure Manager ==
First it says to combine all parts of a model to a single texture file. But then it says that different parts of a texture-file for different parts of a model should be '''not''' used. Split the texture into smaller parts then.
That sounds like a contradiction to me. The same here for me :"''If using the same texture on multiple models, use a single file, don't make different copies''"


Am I right or wrong here in following things?
Hi Emilian,
When a model (e.g. aircraft) containing different objects (eg. doors, flaps, gear) uses just one texturefile, (all objects mapped in one single texturefile) then the GPU loads the texturefile for each object seperatly? Or does it load only once?


I have seen your comment on the failure manager page. What problems are you seeing, and how are you trying to disable the module?--[[User:Galvedro|Galvedro]] ([[User talk:Galvedro|talk]]) 18:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


I have six instruments-models (one object). All instrument-models are seperated, and wrapped in a seperated .xml, but each of their texturefiles are combined in one single texturefile. Means the 6 different models just use the same one single texturefile.
==Conversion:  - clarify flipping of image and normals==
Does the GPU here loads the texturefile again for each model? 6 x the same file?
Hi Emilian,


When I made the EC135 with the selectable configurations (selectable objects of the aircraft like different reardoors, radom together with non-configurable objects like the frontdoors, skid...) switching liveries was very slow. Then I grouped (not joined/merged!)all objects in Blender together, switching liveries was much faster. So this let me assume that the GPU loads for each object the texturefile again.
I don't think that people will see your important hint between all those quotes.  
Maybe a post to the devel-list is more helpful.


I'm a bit confused, and I can see different examples of in FGdata.
Cheers
--[[User:HHS|HHS]] ([[User talk:HHS|talk]]) 10:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 
:: Obviously, feel free to post your comments to the devel list-but the consensus is to present all comments here and summarize them. If you're "getting lost" due to quotes here, you are invited to help clean up things, re-structure the article and move more relevant, and more recent, comments to the top of the article so that fellow contributors cannot miss them. In this particular instance it seems obvious that i4dnf did actually work through some of the comments made here and decided to add his comments "inline" - however, we have still 2 more months to go, so why don't you get involved to clean up the article and its quotes - quotes that have  been sufficiently summarized can probably go away, too. --[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] ([[User talk:Hooray|talk]]) 14:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 
:::@Hooray No, I didn't spend time reading all the quotes, I just noticed that quote poping up in the recent changes rss. Why should we cleanup your mess when you don't even bother to do the minimal fact checking needed ??? (one more reason to add to that already very long list of reasons against this stupid quoting)
:::[[User:I4dnf|I4dnf]] ([[User talk:I4dnf|talk]]) 14:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 
:: As has been said previously by others and myself, I do believe that you have a lot to bring to the table, but given your choice of language and attitude, I fail to see why I should keep responding to you. I think it's better for the sake of the project this way, we both know what this is going to end like.
:: However, if you disagree with any of the quotes added you are obviously free to raise the issue on the devel list, preferably with the person who originally made the statements that you think need "fact checking" - given that those quotes were primarily comments from the single guy who's doing/done ~80% of all core development related to rendering stuff and who quite strongly made several points against compressed DDS usage in FlightGear, that should make for an interesting discussion hopefully (that is, if you manage to watch your tone...) - looking really forward to it! (aka "don't shoot the messenger"-just because someone didn't participate in the latest discussion, doesn't automatically invalidate previous comments made in exactly the same context - for the same reason I have quoted statements that you've made when it comes to effects/GLSL whenever you weren't around) --[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] ([[User talk:Hooray|talk]]) 16:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 
== Reflection Shaders ==
Hi,
 
Thanks for the help.
 
I must admit, that I'm wasn't aware of that the earlier shaders are now completely deprecated. I wonder if it would be not better to remove the old shaders from FGData if possible. On the other side especially the aircraft by helijah makes all use of this very first reflection shader. The whole features and usage of this shader aren't documented anywhere, beside inside the .eff-files. It needs a new tutorial to describe the features and how to make use of it. I'm thinking of adding a first structure for this tutorial, which can be completed step by step as I'm currently working on my bachelor thesis. So time is very limited, but I hope it will be better in a few weeks.


Cheers
Cheers
--[[User:HHS|HHS]] 10:03, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
Heiko
 
--[[User:HHS|HHS]] ([[User talk:HHS|talk]]) 11:17, 7 October 2015 (EDT)
:Hi HHS,
:In principle each texture should be loaded once, even if referenced by multiple objects, but that might not work sometimes.
:Quick example #1: if the gear appearance doesn't change with every livery, it's a waste of texture space to put it on the same texture (and you loose flexibility).
:Quick example #2: if all the wheels of the different gears are the same, you can use the same texture for all 6.
:Wrong example is: you have 6 instruments sharing parts of the same texture, but you only show 2 of them at a time, in this case 2/3 of the texture is wasting memory.
:Hope this clears some things,
:[[User:I4dnf|I4dnf]] 11:03, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 11:09, 2 September 2017

Upload wizard

Hi,

What's the matter with the upload wizard? I am aware of a 1 MB file limit (some issue with the latest version of MediaWiki in combination wwith the wizard), but your screenshots are smaller...

Cheers, Gijs (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
It just sits there on adding files to upload, spinner spinning. Probably some weird javascript that doesn't like my browser. It would be nice if there would be a less fancy 'wizard', or a no wizard option, but I suppose there isn't.


LE: Ok, disabling javascript on the page removes the innane wizard. good enough for me :)
Cheers
I4dnf (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Would be appreciated if you could post the error. Works fine here on three different browsers...
The plain upload form is still available at Special:Upload btw, but please do adhere to the templates as explained at Help:Upload.
Gijs (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no error to post. The spinner to the right of the filename is moving, but there's no upload happening.
Thanks for the no-js page info, and I hope I've added the correct templates.
I4dnf (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Issues with the Failure Manager

Hi Emilian,

I have seen your comment on the failure manager page. What problems are you seeing, and how are you trying to disable the module?--Galvedro (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Conversion: - clarify flipping of image and normals

Hi Emilian,

I don't think that people will see your important hint between all those quotes. Maybe a post to the devel-list is more helpful.

Cheers --HHS (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, feel free to post your comments to the devel list-but the consensus is to present all comments here and summarize them. If you're "getting lost" due to quotes here, you are invited to help clean up things, re-structure the article and move more relevant, and more recent, comments to the top of the article so that fellow contributors cannot miss them. In this particular instance it seems obvious that i4dnf did actually work through some of the comments made here and decided to add his comments "inline" - however, we have still 2 more months to go, so why don't you get involved to clean up the article and its quotes - quotes that have been sufficiently summarized can probably go away, too. --Hooray (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
@Hooray No, I didn't spend time reading all the quotes, I just noticed that quote poping up in the recent changes rss. Why should we cleanup your mess when you don't even bother to do the minimal fact checking needed ??? (one more reason to add to that already very long list of reasons against this stupid quoting)
I4dnf (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
As has been said previously by others and myself, I do believe that you have a lot to bring to the table, but given your choice of language and attitude, I fail to see why I should keep responding to you. I think it's better for the sake of the project this way, we both know what this is going to end like.
However, if you disagree with any of the quotes added you are obviously free to raise the issue on the devel list, preferably with the person who originally made the statements that you think need "fact checking" - given that those quotes were primarily comments from the single guy who's doing/done ~80% of all core development related to rendering stuff and who quite strongly made several points against compressed DDS usage in FlightGear, that should make for an interesting discussion hopefully (that is, if you manage to watch your tone...) - looking really forward to it! (aka "don't shoot the messenger"-just because someone didn't participate in the latest discussion, doesn't automatically invalidate previous comments made in exactly the same context - for the same reason I have quoted statements that you've made when it comes to effects/GLSL whenever you weren't around) --Hooray (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Reflection Shaders

Hi,

Thanks for the help.

I must admit, that I'm wasn't aware of that the earlier shaders are now completely deprecated. I wonder if it would be not better to remove the old shaders from FGData if possible. On the other side especially the aircraft by helijah makes all use of this very first reflection shader. The whole features and usage of this shader aren't documented anywhere, beside inside the .eff-files. It needs a new tutorial to describe the features and how to make use of it. I'm thinking of adding a first structure for this tutorial, which can be completed step by step as I'm currently working on my bachelor thesis. So time is very limited, but I hope it will be better in a few weeks.

Cheers Heiko --HHS (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2015 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.flightgear.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:I4dnf&oldid=110058"