Le 29/07/2011 09:26, flightgear-devel-request@... a
> Message: 13
> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:20:06 +0400
> From: Slavutinsky Victor <vitosnet@...>
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] The state of things in Flight Gear
> To: flightgear-devel@...
> Message-ID: <1311866406.6611.69.camel@...>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> You do not get the point entirely and completely.
> I had said what on my deepest thoughts current chaos in Flight Gear
> project will lead everybody to problems what I had experienced with
> Vostok project pretty soon.
> Occasional dropouts and slowing to 1fps and things as that. More and
> more bugs with every change what's harder and harder to eliminate, not
> linearly, squarely harder. Dramatical lowering of common development
> rate, coming to "very outdated" state and loosing of new developers and
> users inflow, then final stopping. That's what, I suppose, awaits
> everybody on current FG path.
> I am sure what only way to avoid that drama is bringing everything in FG
> in order. The sooner we start to bring it in order the better. I am
> leaving because no one wants to do it, I can not do it alone, and I
> suppose when it'll come to serious problems it will be too late for
> anyone. So I do not want to make things what no one will really use bit
> later than two years after now.
> Look. Working hard on falling plane it's may be heroic, but if it is not
> work what pointed on stop of falling then it's very foolish too. I do
> not blame no one. I only tell, guys, I feel that plane starts to fall,
> no one on yoke, You do not want me to take control and do not want to
> take control Yourself, so I balling out, I have chute as things what I
> can make instead of FG.
> You may count me crazy but check number of errors and time of its
> solution time changing please. You had received idea how You may do it.
> Or You can do nothing about that, treat me as some offended guy who
> leaving because no one wants to act as he want. Ok, it's You right to do
> so, and of course it would be easier for most of guys here if it was
> that way, and for me it does not matter, I had ejected already anyway.
> But do not blame me when it'll come to state I had talked You about in
> time I had named. I do not want and do not press that way of events
> developing, I only foresee it as ejected pilot foresee trajectory of
> falling plane. I did all I could. You had been warned. Bye bye.
Here is a tiresome and uninteresting discussion. Victor,
you confuse a particular problem (which affects you personally) and the
general interest of FG.
Speaking of delays in FG, for example, your Vostok is absolutely not a
good example. Your model is gorgeous. But absolutely not optimized. It
is a 3D has nothing to do in a real time 3D engine such as FG.
So, before you give lessons to people of good will and all friendly, it
might be good to review your copy. Humility is also very useful in open
source projects. Your model may be divided by 3 or 4 in size, number of
points, number of facets, without losing its quality first. And you will
discover, magically, the FPS back in FG.
To criticize others as you did, you must first be beyond reproach. And
it's not the case !
Martin, Stuart, Tim and others know what they do and do it with their
hearts. If only one person is unhappy, then the problem is with this
person. This is unstoppable.