[Flightgear-devel] BUG REPORT Failed Ground Vehicles following waypoints
AI ground vehicles NO longer following waypoints, this is a major problem for me as I have a few AI models that are supposed to follow way-points like the car and he just drives across country in a straigt line now instead of following the roads as the way-points in (data\AI\FlightPlans) in all version of flightgear since 2010 seem to be just ignored. I have no doubt all the AI ground vehicles including the train in there suffers the same problem. I have spent hours looking through the AI stuff for all my downloaded FGDATA version going back about 4 years and this has been broken a very long time now. Unless someone who knows about the AI stuff can fix this it is going to prevent most of us who use AI Ground vehicles from making use of this feature in flightgear. Michelle-- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Stefan > On Saturday 27 April 2013 13:31:33 Vivian Meazza wrote: > > > What is the real problem? I've got a little list: > > > > I don't want to download fgdata/fg/sg to find that I have to spend > > hours fixing up my work. I'd rather get on with my own stuff. > > > > I don't want to download fg/sg to find that it won't build. > > > > I don't want to download fgdata to find things which "used to work". > > > > I don't want to have frame-rates of less than 40 and/or jittery. > > Well then the problem cannot be as large as it looks like since ALS does not > cause any of those. > > > I don't want to force users to choose between a nice atmospheric > > effects or shadows, or anything else. > > > > I don't want to force developers to develop ac for one > > scheme/framework rather than another. > > Then why have I not read a single email about how Rembrandt diverges from > the default rendering scheme and forces users to choose or that aricraft > developers have to make adjustments? I only read about ALS which is much > less of a problem, since I can use any airplane with it and can turn it on or off > at runtime without a problem, so as a user I don't have to decide up front. > > > I don't want to open the Devel List to find yet another storm with > > Thorsten at the centre of it. > > > > And finally - I feel really strongly about this one: > > > > I don't want anyone to feel that they have to leave the project > > because of acrimonious discussions on this list or anywhere else. It has > > happened only rarely, but I regret each and every one. > > So why are you with those who are driving Thorsten away if you feel so > strongly about this point? If you don't want a shit storm why are you happily > contributing to it and siding with people who call others racist just for > refusing a huge feature commit during a feature freeze? > > > I know this is unrealistic, but we should all be striving along these lines. > > > > I'm horrified that you have received hate-mail. This is only a flight > > sim for goodness sake. We have a long tradition here of friendly and > > orderly debate. > > These are probably the most reasonable sentences within this whole debate. > Please re-read what I wrote. I'm not taking sides for or against Rembrandt or ALS - I want them to converge. They are both excellent contributions to FG, and should not be considered to be alternatives or rivals. Did I say that ALS causes jitter or frame rates less than 40? My list appertains to all of FG/SG. You have jumped to conclusions. And before jumping check your facts: AFAIK Rembrandt does not depart from the default rendering scheme. If you think it does tell me where. It remains experimental/WIP which is why the user cannot click to access it. Hey, who has Thorsten upset - the Mafia? You'll be telling me that there's a horse's head in his bed next. I certainly don't side with those calling anyone else racist or trying to drive anyone away - I am unaware of that and I don't care to be associated with it. Vivian -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
> > Well then the problem cannot be as large as it looks like since ALS does > not > cause any of those. > > Yes it does .My framerates drop to about 10 fps with ALS.But luckily no one has yet said "Oh this is pretty , lets enable it by default!". I can still use Flightgear quite nicely on the legacy ATI laptop.I cant do that with any other flightsim I've tried. > > So why are you with those who are driving Thorsten away if you feel so > strongly about this point? If you don't want a shit storm why are you > happily > contributing to it and siding with people who call others racist just for > refusing a huge feature commit during a feature freeze? > > I think your exaggerating just a bit here , I dont see anyone trying to drive Thorsten away.He appears stubborn enough to stick around ;).I see people expressing frustration with the uncertain direction these features are taking. OK said my piece , back to updating models (again). -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] XML Binding file for the DragonRise Inc. Generic USB Joystick
Hello,
Here is a driver file for the DragonRise Inc. Generic USB Joystick. It's
a joypad that is lent by one of the major FAIs in France for use with
its net-top box. It might be sold under different names: I only know the
brand and model name from the dmesg output on Linux.
The joypad has two modes; the offsets in this driver file are given for
analog mode. I put a GPL2+ header in the file, but any free license that
suits the FlightGear devs would be fine.
Note: triggers are done with:
# This seems the most common
setprop("/controls/armament/trigger", 1);
# Many planes use this instead
setprop("/ai/submodels/trigger", 1);
and
# This seems the most common for "trigger"
setprop("/controls/armament/trigger1", 1);
# Many planes use this instead [also true for "trigger1"?]
setprop("/ai/submodels/trigger1", 1);
Maybe this could be simplified if all aircrafts agreed on the same
property. Actually, I didn't inspect any aircraft file but gathered the
information from , which seems
to indicate that only setting /controls/armament/trigger1 is necessary
for trigger1. I set two properties in order to be on the safe side but
maybe it is not necessary here.
Thanks for the great flight simulator!
P.S.: I am not subscribed to the list.
--
Florent Rougon
generic.xml
Description: Binding file for the DragonRise Inc. Generic USB Joystick
--
Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt
New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service
that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your
browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic
and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
On Saturday 27 April 2013 13:31:33 Vivian Meazza wrote: > What is the real problem? I've got a little list: > > I don't want to download fgdata/fg/sg to find that I have to spend > hours fixing up my work. I'd rather get on with my own stuff. > > I don't want to download fg/sg to find that it won't build. > > I don't want to download fgdata to find things which "used to work". > > I don't want to have frame-rates of less than 40 and/or jittery. Well then the problem cannot be as large as it looks like since ALS does not cause any of those. > I don't want to force users to choose between a nice atmospheric > effects or shadows, or anything else. > > I don't want to force developers to develop ac for one > scheme/framework rather than another. Then why have I not read a single email about how Rembrandt diverges from the default rendering scheme and forces users to choose or that aricraft developers have to make adjustments? I only read about ALS which is much less of a problem, since I can use any airplane with it and can turn it on or off at runtime without a problem, so as a user I don't have to decide up front. > I don't want to open the Devel List to find yet another storm with > Thorsten at the centre of it. > > And finally - I feel really strongly about this one: > > I don't want anyone to feel that they have to leave the project > because of acrimonious discussions on this list or anywhere else. It has > happened only rarely, but I regret each and every one. So why are you with those who are driving Thorsten away if you feel so strongly about this point? If you don't want a shit storm why are you happily contributing to it and siding with people who call others racist just for refusing a huge feature commit during a feature freeze? > I know this is unrealistic, but we should all be striving along these lines. > > I'm horrified that you have received hate-mail. This is only a flight sim > for goodness sake. We have a long tradition here of friendly and orderly > debate. These are probably the most reasonable sentences within this whole debate. Regards, Stefan -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Heads Up - SimGear fails to build under MSVC10
Tom
> -Original Message-
> From: Vivian Meazza [mailto:vivian.mea...@lineone.net]
> Sent: 27 April 2013 13:19
> To: 'FlightGear developers discussions'
> Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Heads Up - SimGear fails to build under
> MSVC10
>
> Tom,
>
> > Sent: 27 April 2013 13:09
> > To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Heads Up - SimGear fails to build
> > under
> > MSVC10
> >
> > Am 2013-04-27 13:21, schrieb Vivian Meazza:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > This morning's pull of SG fails to build here under MSVC10 with the
> > > following error:
> > >
> > > error LNK1169: one or more multiply defined symbols found
> > > test_animations.exe
> >
> > Does it help if you remove ${OPENSCENEGRAPH_LIBRARIES} from
> > simgear/scene/model/CMakeLists.txt:62?
> >
That gives me 5041 errors! Unless I did something wrong ...
Vivian
--
Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt
New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service
that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your
browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic
and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
Thorsten > Sent: 27 April 2013 08:11 > To: FlightGear developers discussions > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering > > > That said - I don't see why an Atmospheric Light Scattering scheme > > should have embedded in it some ac modelling stuff. > > That serves to diverge the schemes. And it makes it look like ALS is > > your private sandbox. > > Offering new and different options is the whole point of having a different > scheme. What would be the point of having Rembrandt if it were to look just > as the default scheme and would not offer novel options? You think these > options should be limited to the sky (and terrain?) - fine, I don't, I think they > may well affect models, trees, all the visuals. > > Since Emilian accused me of wanting to rule FG anyway - just what would > happen if I would start editing some new effects also into Rembrandt or > default? Or if I would decide myself how Basic Weather needs to interact > with ALS? Let me give you the answer: I would get the same accusations 10 > times over - and (at least partially) rightfully so. It's not my call to make - it's > up to the maintainers of Basic Weather (Rembrandt,...) to decide what to > include and how. There's simply no pleasing some people - if I introduce new > effect in my framework, you complain about diverging schemes, if I would do > it everywhere you would be complaining that I can't simply make such > decisions on my own. So in your book, I just shouldn't introduce any novel > effects at all unless you approve? (You didn't say this, but it pretty much > follows.) You can't be serious. > > Last time I checked, I designed or ported something like 95% of the code of > ALS. Stuart did some work on the trees, Lauri did the original skydome shader > before haze, Emilian contributed insights, corrections and tests to the ported > model ubershader - and that's basically it. So I guess that makes me the > current maintainer of the scheme. > > What you (and Henri) are really saying here that you guys should really have > a vote on where the scheme is going without investing work into it (and > ironically enough, you're both not even users of the scheme), and you > should even be able to overrule my own judgement on what is important > and how things get implemented and be able to tell me what I should be > working on first. Just since when did we start doing things that way in FG? > > I fully accept that decisions which affect other subsystems, potentially > disable them or require substantial action by others must be discussed and > voted on, and that coding e.g. an explicit preference for one weather system > over the other is a bad thing. So if the choice were that we can have either > Rembrandt or ALS, we'd need to have a discussion and a vote. But that's not > the case. > > Thus, you don't get to overrule me if I consider implementing wind effects > more useful than the wake effect. You can bring up your case, you can ask > nicely, we can have a discussion, but as long as you expect me to do the > work, you'll have to live with my decisions and wait till your request reaches > the top of my to-do list (in the case of the wake, I have already stated that > it's on the to-do list - same with the rainbow). You can do it yourself if it has a > higher priority for you (in which case I offered help and expect the customary > amount of coordination with what I'm doing, same as if I would start working > on one of your aircraft), you can convince anyone else to do it (in which case > I'll also help), and that's how it works everywhere else in FG. If I want a > particular feature for an aircraft, I ask nicely and try to be convincing, I don't > go around claiming the aircraft is broken every time. Why is this mode not > acceptable to you? > > You know, I don't want any special treatment here - I just want that the same > standards are applied to me which apply to other people (specifically also you > and Emilian). And I can't see that in what you say - I'm always held to much > stricter standards. > > Vivian, for all your eloquence, I don't get the impression that all this is the > real sticking point - what is _really_ bugging you here? > > You're not a user of ALS, I haven't seen it on in any of your screenshots. > You're not affected personally by anything I do. I told you I will put the > rainbow back and I will implement the wave, and we're in the middle > between release periods, just when it's officially time to introduce new > features with the idea to consolidate towards the release. So there can't be > any serious concern at this point that users might not get to see and > appreciate your work sufficiently. You argue against the hypothetical case > that you might potentially have to adjust your aircraft for ALS even when this > is not factually the case. > > At every opportunity, you speak up against the way Advanced Weather is > done. You implemented, together with Emilian, an environme
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Heads Up - SimGear fails to build under MSVC10
Tom,
> Sent: 27 April 2013 13:09
> To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Heads Up - SimGear fails to build under
> MSVC10
>
> Am 2013-04-27 13:21, schrieb Vivian Meazza:
> > Hi
> >
> > This morning's pull of SG fails to build here under MSVC10 with the
> > following error:
> >
> > error LNK1169: one or more multiply defined symbols found
> > test_animations.exe
>
> Does it help if you remove ${OPENSCENEGRAPH_LIBRARIES} from
> simgear/scene/model/CMakeLists.txt:62?
>
Trying that
Vivian
--
Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt
New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service
that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your
browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic
and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Heads Up - SimGear fails to build under MSVC10
Am 2013-04-27 13:21, schrieb Vivian Meazza:
> Hi
>
> This morning's pull of SG fails to build here under MSVC10 with the
> following error:
>
> error LNK1169: one or more multiply defined symbols found
> test_animations.exe
Does it help if you remove ${OPENSCENEGRAPH_LIBRARIES} from
simgear/scene/model/CMakeLists.txt:62?
Tom
--
Thomas Geymayer www.tomprogs.at / C-Forum und Tutorial: www.proggen.org
Student of Computer Science @ Graz University of Technology
--- Austria
--
Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt
New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service
that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your
browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic
and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
> > What you (and Henri) are really saying here that you guys should really have > a vote on where the scheme is going without investing work into it (and > ironically enough, you're both not even users of the scheme), and you > should even be able to overrule my own judgement on what is important and > how things get implemented and be able to tell me what I should be working > on first. Just since when did we start doing things that way in FG? I thought the debate closed. The very good description of the situation by Vivian ( and best of the best with a Shakespeare introduction :) ). He was expressing in detail how to do and what to do. I worry there won't be a pilot in the "Flighgear" plane, though Vivian could be the one. Renk, How could you say "you're both not even users of the scheme" ? Yes i had at the beginning done some screenshots with the Dome project, the period when i could use it without breaking others features. I was, even, able to combine the Effects with the dome by unlocking the conditions. To me the project was promising , until you engage to develop deeply. Yes, right now, i do use Rembrandt for screenshots the effect/results are the best we may get with Flighgear. light and shadow are amazing. Renk, You pretend to be experienced and worry we don't use your know how, Emilian is experienced and you rejected his know how. Would you say everybody but you is stupid. Renk, How could you say the Shadows system has come after ALS ? Looking at the history of Flightgear, i can notice the Shadows system was a feature in the old time, i have got from GRTUX's database ( inherited) some old snapshot with Shadows. With the OSG arrival that old feature did not longer worked. So, Rembrandt is only coming to follow the original features content, it could have been offered as default within flightgear as soon it was considered right. It is right since months ago. It is said "Rembrandt cannot be run on some GPU", yes it depends on the OpenGL compliance, and a minimum of memory is necessary ( for better information refer to fredb instructions ). The modification to the aircraft to get it working is minor, i had to update our hangar it took only 1 hour to update our hangar (21 officials models + 12 non official ). Only the object with transparencies are involved, easy to find. Since it offer a nice real Light , i implemented it , in cockpit/ instrument and outside with landing light , it took time to understand the process, one day ( slow brain ) , and only 5 hours to update the Hangar. The time required was minor compared to the time spent when i had to introduce the shader effect ( one week and more). All the best Ahmad (Henri) On 27 April 2013 09:10, Renk Thorsten wrote: > > That said - I don't see why an Atmospheric > > Light Scattering scheme should have embedded in it some ac modelling > > stuff. > > That serves to diverge the schemes. And it makes it look like ALS is your > > private sandbox. > > Offering new and different options is the whole point of having a > different scheme. What would be the point of having Rembrandt if it were to > look just as the default scheme and would not offer novel options? You > think these options should be limited to the sky (and terrain?) - fine, I > don't, I think they may well affect models, trees, all the visuals. > > Since Emilian accused me of wanting to rule FG anyway - just what would > happen if I would start editing some new effects also into Rembrandt or > default? Or if I would decide myself how Basic Weather needs to interact > with ALS? Let me give you the answer: I would get the same accusations 10 > times over - and (at least partially) rightfully so. It's not my call to > make - it's up to the maintainers of Basic Weather (Rembrandt,...) to > decide what to include and how. There's simply no pleasing some people - > if I introduce new effect in my framework, you complain about diverging > schemes, if I would do it everywhere you would be complaining that I can't > simply make such decisions on my own. So in your book, I just shouldn't > introduce any novel effects at all unless you approve? (You didn't say > this, but it pretty much follows.) You can't be serious. > > Last time I checked, I designed or ported something like 95% of the code > of ALS. Stuart did some work on the trees, Lauri did the original skydome > shader before haze, Emilian contributed insights, corrections and tests to > the ported model ubershader - and that's basically it. So I guess that > makes me the current maintainer of the scheme. > > What you (and Henri) are really saying here that you guys should really > have a vote on where the scheme is going without investing work into it > (and ironically enough, you're both not even users of the scheme), and you > should even be able to overrule my own judgement on what is important and > how things get implemented and be able to tell me what I should be working > on first. Just since when di
[Flightgear-devel] Heads Up - SimGear fails to build under MSVC10
Hi This morning's pull of SG fails to build here under MSVC10 with the following error: error LNK1169: one or more multiply defined symbols found test_animations.exe Jenkins has also failed. The workaround is not to build test_animations.exe Vivian -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] (no subject)
> If something exists and works in the default scheme, but is missing or does > not work in a child scheme then that child scheme is broken or we might say > that there is a regression. Which all would be relevant if it would be a child scheme - which it isn't. >The solution was obvious - combine the Fresnel and > Rainbow look-up textures into 1 texture. A few trivial changes - job done. > Of more interest, we could, and probably should, do something similar for > almost any complex math function. That depends on the complexity. To compute the rainbow is a rotation in color space - GPU's have hardware acceleration to do the job and this computes way faster than looking up a texture. A typical Fresnel curve can probably be parametrized by a polynomial - if so, again that'd be way faster than a texture lookup. In no test case I've studied so far was a texture lookup superior to function evaluation - exponentials, combinations of sine functions or even the generalized logistic function computes way faster than a texture lookup. Akenine-Moller 'Real Time Rendering' also confirms that on modern GPUs functions evaluate typically faster than texture lookups. Plus, you can evaluate a function only when needed, whereas you must evaluate a texture. Unless the function is an integral, I don't see the need to introduce yet more texture lookups. I have indicated my plan to replace this by a functionsfor better performance in ALS and will do so in the mid-term - you may disregard my experiences at your pleasure. Best, * Thorsten -- Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Atmospheric Light Scattering
> That said - I don't see why an Atmospheric > Light Scattering scheme should have embedded in it some ac modelling > stuff. > That serves to diverge the schemes. And it makes it look like ALS is your > private sandbox. Offering new and different options is the whole point of having a different scheme. What would be the point of having Rembrandt if it were to look just as the default scheme and would not offer novel options? You think these options should be limited to the sky (and terrain?) - fine, I don't, I think they may well affect models, trees, all the visuals. Since Emilian accused me of wanting to rule FG anyway - just what would happen if I would start editing some new effects also into Rembrandt or default? Or if I would decide myself how Basic Weather needs to interact with ALS? Let me give you the answer: I would get the same accusations 10 times over - and (at least partially) rightfully so. It's not my call to make - it's up to the maintainers of Basic Weather (Rembrandt,...) to decide what to include and how. There's simply no pleasing some people - if I introduce new effect in my framework, you complain about diverging schemes, if I would do it everywhere you would be complaining that I can't simply make such decisions on my own. So in your book, I just shouldn't introduce any novel effects at all unless you approve? (You didn't say this, but it pretty much follows.) You can't be serious. Last time I checked, I designed or ported something like 95% of the code of ALS. Stuart did some work on the trees, Lauri did the original skydome shader before haze, Emilian contributed insights, corrections and tests to the ported model ubershader - and that's basically it. So I guess that makes me the current maintainer of the scheme. What you (and Henri) are really saying here that you guys should really have a vote on where the scheme is going without investing work into it (and ironically enough, you're both not even users of the scheme), and you should even be able to overrule my own judgement on what is important and how things get implemented and be able to tell me what I should be working on first. Just since when did we start doing things that way in FG? I fully accept that decisions which affect other subsystems, potentially disable them or require substantial action by others must be discussed and voted on, and that coding e.g. an explicit preference for one weather system over the other is a bad thing. So if the choice were that we can have either Rembrandt or ALS, we'd need to have a discussion and a vote. But that's not the case. Thus, you don't get to overrule me if I consider implementing wind effects more useful than the wake effect. You can bring up your case, you can ask nicely, we can have a discussion, but as long as you expect me to do the work, you'll have to live with my decisions and wait till your request reaches the top of my to-do list (in the case of the wake, I have already stated that it's on the to-do list - same with the rainbow). You can do it yourself if it has a higher priority for you (in which case I offered help and expect the customary amount of coordination with what I'm doing, same as if I would start working on one of your aircraft), you can convince anyone else to do it (in which case I'll also help), and that's how it works everywhere else in FG. If I want a particular feature for an aircraft, I ask nicely and try to be convincing, I don't go around claiming the aircraft is broken every time. Why is this mode not acceptable to you? You know, I don't want any special treatment here - I just want that the same standards are applied to me which apply to other people (specifically also you and Emilian). And I can't see that in what you say - I'm always held to much stricter standards. Vivian, for all your eloquence, I don't get the impression that all this is the real sticking point - what is _really_ bugging you here? You're not a user of ALS, I haven't seen it on in any of your screenshots. You're not affected personally by anything I do. I told you I will put the rainbow back and I will implement the wave, and we're in the middle between release periods, just when it's officially time to introduce new features with the idea to consolidate towards the release. So there can't be any serious concern at this point that users might not get to see and appreciate your work sufficiently. You argue against the hypothetical case that you might potentially have to adjust your aircraft for ALS even when this is not factually the case. At every opportunity, you speak up against the way Advanced Weather is done. You implemented, together with Emilian, an environment for the water shader which explicitly favours Basic Weather over Advanced Weather, in spite of the fact that I documented the lighting model of Advanced Weather in the readme, outlined it to you on this list, again in a mail to you and
