Re: [Flightgear-devel] Heads up: scenery download / built-in

[Vivian M. <viv...@li...>]

ThorstenB wrote:

 
... snip ...

> 
> On 15.06.2011 23:30, Vivian Meazza wrote:
>  > And less clever users, which is most of the people out there, won't. I
>  > include myself in that category, since I have failed to make it work
>  > so far.
>  > I sometimes wonder if we really expect the average user to poke
>  > around in preferences.xml? But then, we have FGRun that does most of
>  > that for us.
> 
> There should be no need to edit anything in preferences.xml. You should
> be able to enter the directory in the GUI (yes, I know, no directory
> dialog). Or you could also provide it via a new command-line option
> (--terrasync-dir). And it's preserved across sessions. So you only need
> to provide/edit it once. I had responded to your email yesterday in
> private, hinting that you probably somehow managed an incomplete fgdata
> pull (which you later confirmed). Maybe something is still broken -
> maybe with my code or still on your system. Or maybe I forgot to push
> something.

 Yes - _I_ know that your code does not require anything done to
preferences.xml by the user. And, as I said, the average user should not be
required to do so.

> So, I am really sorry, Vivian, that you were still unable to make the
> system work for you - on day 2 (though it seems people only started
> trying to use it _today_).

I'm reasonably sure it's something here. But the latest Hudson build #331
doesn't work here either, with the same error messages as my local build.
The trouble is, I have no idea how to fix it.

> But this and other posts today show our general FG mailing list
> tendency: being negative. It's the almost natural response to any
> change. Oh crap! Doesn't work! Don't like it... I've spent _loads_ of
> time into FG in recent months. I have worked the bug tracker almost
> daily. I have fixed countless bugs other people have introduced - _some_
> even hidden in absolutely crappy code (so much on the "design" issue). I
> have searched and fixed memory leaks and investigated performance
> issues. I've fixed loads of issues affecting systems that I personally
> never use. So, if anything wasn't working with my _own_ addition now -
> only in GIT for two days, remember - I think it should've been more than
> obvious that I'd be absolutely willing to explain/test/resolve things -
> and help anyone who was really interested. And to make it work as
> expected: to provide an easier solution in accessing scenery (read the
> forums, if you want to know how users do get along with existing
> terrasync). But that's not how FG works. It's "normal" that any slight
> malfunction is immediately criticized as hell. No attempts in being
> positive, trying to encourage / motivate other people in improving their
> work - and to keep them working on FG. When something isn't working,
> start complaining and being negative. Just look at this list's recent
> history.

Yes, you have done very well for FG, and I'm sure everyone is very grateful,
even if they don't say it. I know I am. 

But, if you suddenly thrust something into FG which hasn't been announced or
trailed in any way, for which no clear need has been established, and which
apparently doesn't work, at least for some (or possibly only me), you will
get a majority of seemingly negative comments. That's just inevitable - for
those who are happy won't say anything and those that are unhappy will be
vociferous. At the end of the day, they are just other peoples' opinions:
you can either accept them or ignore them.

FWIW - on the few occasions in the past when I made major contributions to
FG I ensured that they were tested on both Linux and Windows by others
before they the ever saw the light of day. I'm always ready to test stuff
for you or anyone else. This is actually what I was trying to do on this
occasion.
 
> So, you're all hoping for a better FG. A large redesign, so we can make
> use of multi-core systems, can even distribute parts across multiple
> machines. Can separate the GUI. Get Nasal outside the main simulation
> loop. Well, so do I. But I'm becoming more and more convinced, that this
> indeed is _not_ going to happen. No, not because of that "new" library
> and "such tendencies" (while in fact that library is much better
> prepared to be driven by HLA or something similar than most other
> parts). No, we're very likely to not get any of this since we're
> absolutely unable to motivate - or at least keep people motivated on
> working on our project. That's a major issue we have. Everyone who
> spends time is "welcomed" by negative comments - and surprisingly many
> leave. And I'm sorry to say, after reading emails like the above, I do
> have difficulties in keeping myself motivated.
 
> On 15.06.2011 23:59, Gene Buckle wrote:
>  > I have the option of being able to just punt and keep using FSX. :D

That was a dig at me - Gene and I were just joshing one another. 
 
Finally - I have this hanging in my study:

http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_if.htm

Vivian