Re: [Flightgear-devel] Volcanoes - an update

[Thorsten R. <tho...@sc...>]

> It would be nice if you answered the question instead of being ignored  
> for
> no apparent reason.


*taking a deep breath*

Please forgive me the relative amount of bluntness in the following, but:  
May I remind you that (like everyone else) I do FG as a hobby, that I have  
real-world stuff to do just as well, and that I absolutely don't see  
myself under an obligation to answer every question within less than 24  
hours (or even at all).

So please take a moment to re-examine the attitude that brings you to  
write something like the above. Thanks.

But why don't I 'just' take the few minutes to answer?

Because I'm seeing a good dozen FG-related queries every day (questions to  
me via forum, via list, via PM, via email in addition to questions in  
forum and list to which I know the answer but others likely do not,...)  
and if I take 'just' 10 minutes to deal with every one, it's two hours of  
my day.

So I simply just don't react to everything - I priorize.

You're asking to satisfy your own curiosity, Chris is an  
aircraft-maintainer and early-adopter who might be the first to implement  
something like this, so it's not mere curiosity, there's potentially  
tangible benefits for FG here - which is one reason I deal with his  
question first.

The other reason you might have guessed before asking. I'm the creator and  
maintainer of ALS, how likely is it that I have *not* thought about how to  
interface it with other development I'm doing? So the fact that I don't  
mention it in the plan is unlikely to be because I never think of ALS. It  
must be due to some other reason - and the reason is that I'm thinking  
about it and haven't made up my mind.

I will come to an answer in my own time and prefer not to be hurried.

There's a second thing that I do not really like, and that's people  
creating their feature wishlist when I sketch a development plan (usually  
in the guise of 'wouldn't it be a great idea if we could also?' or 'then  
we could also have' or similar ideas). I know thousands of things that  
would be nice to have, and lots of which I would be technically able to do  
- but my time is limited. When I write a proposal to the devel list, it's  
based on what I see myself actually doing, and I send it because I want  
some feedback from other developers of whether it interferes with their  
plans, or whether I should re-structure things (as has in fact happened in  
the volcano case). What I don't really need at this point is an added  
feature wishlist without the manpower to back it up.

Anyway - hope that explains my position, again, please forgive the  
bluntness.

* Thorsten