6/10/2023 0 Comments Flightgear v3.2.0The other key point is that any changes contributed to the FGMEMBERS infrastructure may never make it into the original repositories. Taken together, this negates the key benefit of a single location for all content. Whilst certain repositories may be up to date within FGMEMBERS, it is not necessarily true that this will remain the case. However the disparate nature of contributions means that FGMEMBERS is a divergence of most of the original content. At a first glance this appears to be a good idea, as there is a single place where everything can be found. This was expanded to include all the other models and assets from all non-official repositories from all corners of the internet, to form a single source for all contributed assets ( core assets, aircraft, scenery, 3 rd party hangars, etc.). One of the objectives of the project is longevity and ensuring that the path taken is, with the best available knowledge, as future proof as possible, allowing authors to make their contributions with the minimum amount of disruption whilst maintaining quality and licencing standards.Īs a result of the disagreement, one contributor started what is generally considered to be a hostile fork of the core asset repositories into what is known as FGMEMBERS. Clearly with five years of discussions already undertaken it was not a viable path forwards to restart discussing the splitting of the assets and which revision control systems were most suited for the FlightGear project. Unfortunately this necessary change resulted in a fundamental disagreement with a couple of FlightGear users who demanded that the decision making process be restarted. This required the removal of the aircraft models from the old fgdata repository, leaving the core assets and the default aircraft. Why not switch the core infrastructure to FGMEMBERS?ĭuring five years of in-depth discussions on the development mailing list (where decisions are made ) a consensus of opinion was reached which defined the future direction for the core assets of the FlightGear project.Why not consider the FGMEMBERS proposal?.Why use the “hostile fork” terminology?.Why is FGMEMBERS considered as a legal liability?.This includes the divergence of models as well as scenery enhancements that are not contributed to the scene models database. From experience, the core team knows that the lack of appropriate controls on contributions may, after a long period of time, lead to a divergence that may result in contributions being lost. The FGMEMBERS infrastructure offers little benefit to contributors. The core FlightGear team feel that it is important to make a clear statement of their position concerning the FGMEMBERS organization, explaining why it is important to continue working in a way that will ensure that FlightGear continues to prosper for the next 20 years as well as to clear up any confusion and FUD that has been disseminated by members of the FGMEMBERS organization. What you see today as FlightGear is the result of 20 years of collaborative development effort by hundreds of talented people all working together to provide a freely available GPL flight simulator that anyone can contribute to. Pretty much all of that seems quite possible in Orbiter as well, so I'm trying to find out what you're seeing I'm not.FlightGear FGMEMBERS Statement (v2.2): Preface So basically should I ever have the time (and that's a big if), I'd design my mission up-front using LEO targeting, use the results of that exported as PEG-7 targets in the simulation, use the in-sim MCC visualization tools when needed (I have a trajectory map, an ECAL map and the rendezvous coordinate display so far) and otherwise rely on the Shuttle avionics where possible. I have orbital rendezvous targets configurable), and for anything that requires MCC computing capabilities, I simply use LEO Targeting (as I would for a whole mission design) - with that, I can quickly try out things, fit optimal transfers or visualize what is going to happen without the need of running a whole simulation in the background. So forgive my ignorance (I'm only loosely following SSU development and not reading every detail) - what level of MCC would you like to have?Īs for myself, I much prefer to arrange the simulated world to my needs (i.e.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |