Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Modification Project
On 05 Jan 2003 23:07:47 -0800, Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > ..I'll ask and cc here, look for > > "http://www.dlsproductions.com/fg/"; in the "Subject: " header. > > You're all taking this rather well, as far as I can tell... ..I've received a response from Leo, they are discussing this, and will respond here. I took the liberty of advicing them we want factual criticsm as warranted, not sissy type excuses. ;-) ..and their Hurricane and a few screenshots does look neat, so I asked again for a DL url, they possibly feel their mod code is not ready, which doesn't worry me, it can be fixed if we like it and dumped if we don't. ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Modification Project
Matthew Johnson writes (quoting an online review): > "Overall the system structure and coding is poor - and reflects the > checkered and disrupted development history" That is true, unfortunately. FlightGear's code is better organized than many open source projects (and far better than nearly all commercial ones), but it's still pretty haphazard -- the main loop is a poster child for the spaghetti code antipattern, for example. We can fix these problems, and the current CVS is a big improvement over 0.7.10, but we still have a long way to go before the code is properly readable and maintainable. > "Documentation is poor and in many cases non-existent." The documentation contributed so far is generally good, but there's not nearly enough of it. That's a problem common to most open source projects (and many commercial ones). I disagree strongly with formal requirements documents, RFCs, etc. -- unless you're working on software for something like a life-support system or a missle guidance system, those are just excuses not to code. I do agree with Norm, however, that we need more high-level developer docs; perhaps a few simple, one-page stories about the design would help. > "Any significant system changes or adaptations require C++ and Unix > skill" Fortunately, that was not fully true of 0.7.10 and is scarcely true at all now. People have implemented entire aircraft systems without touching the C++ code. "Unix skill" could mean something as simple as changing directories and opening a configuration file in a text editor, so I cannot really comment on that. > "Adapting the system for more general use (e.g. multi-user/network > simulation would be difficult and would require major rewrite." I don't think their conclusion is correct here; in fact, our property system will make multi-user easier to implement than in most games or simulators, not harder. > "Strongly linked to the Unix/C++ development environment - limits > broader appeal." Perhaps they mean that our main development platform uses configure and make, and the VC++ project file is always lagging. Or perhaps they're commenting on the lack of good scripting support. > "The system is difficult to work with due to the lack of a > maintenance/management front-end. Tasks like adding and animating > aircraft models; adding scenery etc. are difficult and fiddly." I agree with them here. FlightGear is still hard for end-users, though it's worth noting that installing a new aircraft is no harder than it was in FS98 (I haven't tried the newer versions), so we're not *that* far behind. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Modification Project
On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 21:02, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 19:18:26 -0600, > "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > They say some nice things in there too, and we need to stand up and > > take our criticism like adults, they clearly spent quite a bit of > > time investigating FlightGear ... > > ..I'll ask and cc here, look for "http://www.dlsproductions.com/fg/"; > in the "Subject: " header. You're all taking this rather well, as far as I can tell... Thanks to Star Office 6 I was able to go through the slides, but most of it is repeated on the web site anyway. I am sure Open Office will have little problem opening it too. "Overall the system structure and coding is poor - and reflects the checkered and disrupted development history" I think they need to get the CVS version...But, they have not had complete access to commercial designs it seems, similer things happen there (case in point, Duke Nuke'm Forever). "Documentation is poor and in many cases non-existent." What documentation are they referring to exactly? "Any significant system changes or adaptations require C++ and Unix skill" Not sure I understand this? Did they have to install a new kernel or new glibc? "Adapting the system for more general use (e.g. multi-user/network simulation would be difficult and would require major rewrite." Really? How is multiplot working? They are looking for a comparison to MSFS 2002 imho. "Strongly linked to the Unix/C++ development environment - limits broader appeal." Thought it was one standard still used quite a bit Unix/C++ makes a powerful environment. "The system is difficult to work with due to the lack of a maintenance/management front-end. Tasks like adding and animating aircraft models; adding scenery etc. are difficult and fiddly." May have a point there at this time, however I am not holding this against FG as its still beta...Actually they made no point of its beta status. Its been left with one positive slide and one negative, should have ended with an errata. Personal thoughts: Where is that Hurricane? Looks like a potentially good model. Perhaps they should have waited until version 1.0 of Flight Gear came out and waited for a binary... -- Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Modification Project
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 19:18:26 -0600, "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > They say some nice things in there too, and we need to stand up and > take our criticism like adults, they clearly spent quite a bit of > time investigating FlightGear ... ..I'll ask and cc here, look for "http://www.dlsproductions.com/fg/"; in the "Subject: " header. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Modification Project
Curt wrote: > Right, I don't want to be too critical ... they are certainly entitled > to form an opinion based on their experiences. They also may be > giving us poor marks in the area of cross-platform portability for not > doing everything natively on every platform ... there again, that may > be fair criticism or not depending on where you are coming from. > > They say some nice things in there too, and we need to stand up and > take our criticism like adults, they clearly spent quite a bit of time > investigating FlightGear ... I agree, of course, but a high amount of time spent trying to write a quality piece doesn't always *result* in a quality piece. We've been critiqued before, and when it is done competently it is a great help. However, their final remarks led me to believe they wanted something handed to them and didn't expect to actually get their hands dirty, and also that they didn't look very closely at what others have done with FlightGear - even though that information is linked from the home page. Jon smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Modification Project
Jon Berndt writes: > > I think we should look closely on their conclusion in their reflection: > > > > > > In conclusion, the FlightGear flight simulator is a very nice flight sim > > package that offers great features (for free), but very poor > > extensibility with very few user-friendly tools and source code that is > > geared towards a particular operating system (Linux) instead of being > > truly cross-platform. For the purposes of modifying FlightGear for other > > types of simulations or for virtual prototyping, I recommend choosing a > > different software package. > > > > > > CU, > > Christian > > Hmm. I didn't see this. Right away I wonder about two things: > > > 1) Their motivations. > 2) Their true qualifications that might lend credibility to their > conclusions. 3) Their past experiences with other software which might color their future expectations. (I get the impression that if there isn't an easy to use gui based tool to do something, we automatically get poor marks in that area.) That may be fair criticism, or not, depending on where you are coming from. > Funny, I sort of feel that I've had better experience trying to run > FlightGear on Windows. I'll have to look closer at their web page. Maybe. > Doesn't sound like they offer much in the way of objective analysis. Do > these guys have any idea what FlightGear is being used for? Right, I don't want to be too critical ... they are certainly entitled to form an opinion based on their experiences. They also may be giving us poor marks in the area of cross-platform portability for not doing everything natively on every platform ... there again, that may be fair criticism or not depending on where you are coming from. They say some nice things in there too, and we need to stand up and take our criticism like adults, they clearly spent quite a bit of time investigating FlightGear ... Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Modification Project
> I think we should look closely on their conclusion in their reflection: > > > In conclusion, the FlightGear flight simulator is a very nice flight sim > package that offers great features (for free), but very poor > extensibility with very few user-friendly tools and source code that is > geared towards a particular operating system (Linux) instead of being > truly cross-platform. For the purposes of modifying FlightGear for other > types of simulations or for virtual prototyping, I recommend choosing a > different software package. > > > CU, > Christian Hmm. I didn't see this. Right away I wonder about two things: 1) Their motivations. 2) Their true qualifications that might lend credibility to their conclusions. Funny, I sort of feel that I've had better experience trying to run FlightGear on Windows. I'll have to look closer at their web page. Maybe. Doesn't sound like they offer much in the way of objective analysis. Do these guys have any idea what FlightGear is being used for? Jon smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Modification Project
Erik Hofman wrote: > > Hi, > > Some one must have had a great time: > http://www.dlsproductions.com/fg/ A very interesting page! I think we should look closely on their conclusion in their reflection: In conclusion, the FlightGear flight simulator is a very nice flight sim package that offers great features (for free), but very poor extensibility with very few user-friendly tools and source code that is geared towards a particular operating system (Linux) instead of being truly cross-platform. For the purposes of modifying FlightGear for other types of simulations or for virtual prototyping, I recommend choosing a different software package. CU, Christian -- The idea is to die young as late as possible.-- Ashley Montague ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
