User talk:I4dnf: Difference between revisions

From FlightGear wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
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)
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.  
: 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. Without the copyright law, and it's effects, there would be no GPL, so the GPL point is rather moot.
: 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, against the anarchy, and lack of resolution that's governing FG right now. But as it is now I have no reason, nor motivation to continue. Thanks [[User:I4dnf|I4dnf]] 14:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
: 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.
 
: But as it is now I have no reason, nor motivation to continue. Thanks...
: [[User:I4dnf|I4dnf]] 14:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


== Images ==
== Images ==

Revision as of 14:58, 23 February 2013

Your aircraft removal request (02/2013)

Hi, I'm referring to your request at [1]. 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, --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.
But as it is now I have no reason, nor motivation to continue. Thanks...
I4dnf 14:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Images

Thankyou for editing the pages and everything I4dnf!

I honestly didn't know how to do all that! :D

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.

How do I change the file names of the images?


Hello I4dnf,

I just looked through "Modeling Guidelines draft" and especially "Texturing Guidelines" and I'm a bit confused now. 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? 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 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. Does the GPU here loads the texturefile again for each model? 6 x the same file?

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'm a bit confused, and I can see different examples of in FGdata.

Cheers --HHS 10:03, 8 April 2012 (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,
I4dnf 11:03, 8 April 2012 (EDT)