Jens Wilhelm Wulf schrieb:

> This was easy...two people are working on this project now and then..no use
> and for a release schedule due to lack of manpower.

[...]

[several hundreds of new programmers]

> Several hundred? You're joking. Seriously: usually I don't even have time to
> spent just like in the thread we're having now. This would consume all of my
> spare time. So all of this depends on how much care they need
>  - answering questions
>  - reviewing their code. Sadly, I learnt that this is necessary. Again, this
>    depends on how much their changes change the system or just add to defined
>    places. I care about code quality.

You absolutely got the point. I now compile crrcsim on my own from the
repository and I started inspecting the code to find out how I am able
to extend the existing work. It will take some time for me to fully
understand the software. If I feel I am ready to contribute meaningful
code, we will get in contact.

Bernd

On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 16:18 +0100, Jens Wilhelm Wulf wrote:
> >     Musta been a brainfart; sometimes ADD is that way, sorry. I don't
> > believe the availability of choice was what I was referring to,
> I don't know what you mean by 'ADD' and don't get your intention here. There
> are at least wings3d and blender, maybe something else open source, plus
> some closed source tools.

     ADD is Attention Deficit Disorder. It's not a short attention span;
it's the problem of having several, in my case six, competing threads of
thought working at a time. Mention a piece of data, and I get another 5
alternatives at the same time. Most times, they even distract me, from
me. I don't have money for the medicine, nor the interest in carrying
medicine that, if I'm not also carrying a prescription will put me in
jail, so I have to go without it. It's not fun, but I don't have an
alternate just now. I'm broke. And I'm gonna stay that way as long as
I'm here taking care of mom.

     It does, however make me good at spotting disorganization and making
things simple for those who *do* have a short attention span. I was
hoping to bring that the project. Part of the enthusiasm was having
something I could actually do.

> >     Will I need special creds to edit the wiki? I'm happy to do that.
> Nope, just do it.

     Uhm, the website to which you refer tells me I need credentials due
to spamming...

> >     What happens if, due to my cheerleading and suggestions,
> > documentation and model-building, I get several hundred more people
> > here? Is it gonna drive you nuts, or will you appreciate a few more
> > developers?  I'd really like to know.

> Several hundred? You're joking. Seriously: usually I don't even have time to
> spent just like in the thread we're having now. This would consume all of my
> spare time. So all of this depends on how much care they need
>  - answering questions
>  - reviewing their code. Sadly, I learnt that this is necessary. Again, this
>    depends on how much their changes change the system or just add to defined
>    places. I care about code quality.

     And there's the clue I needed. You don't want this to be a
collaboration; this is a part time hobby. You're not interested in
making a project that commands it's own respect, it's just a sketchpad
in which you waste a little time.

     It also tells me two other things: you're unable to delegate
control, and you're not that great with people. Most programmers aren't.
That's why there are mid-level managers.

     This explains why the people have come and gone. I can stop reading
through the archives to collect FAQ entries and learn the personalities.
It also explains how, when a new guy comes to help, and sends a little
mail to someone, that guy throws a fit of rage. I don't know what
happened, and I don't care. I just don't want to fight, kick and claw to
volunteer.

     Dude, I love the project.  Not only is it clever, high quality code,
it's well executed, and it actually makes me very happy. I don't get
much of that here anymore- I've been stuck in a place where I can't get
tech work, and non-tech work is out of reach for physical reasons. This
software, and I say this without hyperbole, it 'makes my day'. It's been
too long (1986) since I flew with regularity.

     But I don't believe I can work with you; the project will continue
to grow for years, but my efforts would seem to only encounter
scorn...and it's not worth it.  I can get scorn from the woman I'm
trying to keep alive.

     No hard feelings- it's your project, I respect it, you two, and how
you two want your project to go.  I hope you have a change of heart,
because I'd really like to take part in this kind of work.

     Thanks

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Brian Fahrländer                 Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
  Evansville, IN                            and GlobalWarming(TM) heretic
  ICQ: 5119262                             AIM/Yahoo/Google: WheelDweller
------------------------------------------------------------------------

>     Musta been a brainfart; sometimes ADD is that way, sorry. I don't
> believe the availability of choice was what I was referring to,
I don't know what you mean by 'ADD' and don't get your intention here. There
are at least wings3d and blender, maybe something else open source, plus
some closed source tools.

> *You* know where everything is, but
> you're not leaving a user-friendly trail by which most people can get
> started.
You should be careful here. You're not even able to find or read

   http://crrcsim.berlios.de/wiki/index.php?n=CRRCsim.CreateModels

(see my/your other post) and I think this is your fault. Yes, I read the
rest of your paragraph. But don't even think of blaming me regarding a lack
of documentation or making CRRCSim hard to understand. Just compare its
current source archive (which contains docs, too) to the one when I joined
CRRCSim. Now there is documentation, and everything is structured and not
only stuffed into one flat directory.

Old:
   http://hg.berlios.de/repos/crrcsim/file/62e68499f39e
New:
   http://hg.berlios.de/repos/crrcsim/file/tip
Especially
   http://hg.berlios.de/repos/crrcsim/file/tip/documentation

Ok, that has not been your intention, but I wanted to make that clear
nonetheless.

Back to the point:

There are two official sources of information:
  - home page at http://crrcsim.berlios.de/
  - The source code (including docs). It is kept in a versioned repository
    which can be downloaded/viewed by everyone. The links I often copied are
    views of that repository. This is what's current. See
   
http://crrcsim.berlios.de/wiki/index.php?n=CRRCsim.CRRCSimDevelopmentRepository

The documentation which is contained in the repository should be included in
every install package (win, linux, whatever).

> - Does an accurate version of the docs exist on the net, or is only an
> approximation available? (i.e. Do I have to read only the source to get
> 'the last word' on something?)
Well, of course the source is the last word on everything. Documentation may
always be out of date.


> - I'm guessing there's no release schedule, right?
This was easy...two people are working on this project now and then..no use
and for a release schedule due to lack of manpower.

> - Is there a difference between general documentation, and developer
> documentation? If so, which is the authorative source?
I guess not. Currently the documentation directory in the source contains
info for users AND developers. We could rearrange that to
  - user info (should include installation/compilation)
  - model creator info
  - developer info
while trying not to repeat information. So a dev should read model creator
and user docs, too. However, its index file already uses exactly this
separation. I'll make sure that every available file is listed in the index.

> Underneath that would be a great place to link to the more complex,
> "Airplanes in xml" document.  Not a fixed pointer, but dynamically
> pointing to the current version. (Assuming that's available.)
>
> Without knowing the directory tree for this project, where exactly does
> it show where this information...the relevant version, is?
On
   http://crrcsim.berlios.de/wiki/index.php?n=CRRCsim.CreateModels
it is said that 'your installation' contains further information and that
its location depends on your operating systems (and how you installed
CRRCSim). I just added a link to the current online versions of those
documents on the said page.


>     Will I need special creds to edit the wiki? I'm happy to do that.
Nope, just do it.

> > > making/editing models,
> > This is not easy. See last year's threads. Read them! I don't want to
> > explain all this again.
>
>     Yeah...again, a nice place for a pointer to the most accurate
> document.

1. Maybe starting in october, "Few new models", this is in important thread I
    guess.
2. "Draft: Software Requirements Specification for CRRCSIM air file creator"
3. 21.10.2009: "trying to develop a semi-automatic FMS->CRRCSim converter: first
    impressions"
4. October: "CRRCSIM Config File Creator"

>   If permitted, I'd like to start on a number of FAQs; One for users,
> developers, one on just model-making, that kinda thing.
Use
   http://crrcsim.berlios.de/wiki/index.php?n=CRRCsim.CrrcSimFaq
as a starting point.


>     What happens if, due to my cheerleading and suggestions,
> documentation and model-building, I get several hundred more people
> here? Is it gonna drive you nuts, or will you appreciate a few more
> developers?  I'd really like to know.
Several hundred? You're joking. Seriously: usually I don't even have time to
spent just like in the thread we're having now. This would consume all of my
spare time. So all of this depends on how much care they need
  - answering questions
  - reviewing their code. Sadly, I learnt that this is necessary. Again, this
    depends on how much their changes change the system or just add to defined
    places. I care about code quality.
I would appreciate a few more developers. If I had the feeling that someone
really cared about quality, I wouldn't even mind if fifty devs came along
and took the project with them, leaving me behind. It does not harm me, you
know. But it eats up my precious spare time to answer silly question and
stop people from doing bullshit.

>     Yeah, _that_one_ I did find at that URL you sent me. If you'll check
> your logs, you'll see I fiddled around in there, trying to locate more,
> more-useful information, but didn't find the hallway with the cheese...
This is not a server whose logs I am able to browse.

Best regards,
Jens

Well, in this case we need to go back to the very basics:
  - CRRCSim's home page is http://crrcsim.berlios.de/
  - It contains a menu on the left. The second section is
    'Documentation', its sixth entry is 'creating new models'.
  - said page is a starting point, really short, and includes
    a link to the tutorial you referred to.

Indeed, this tutorial is very good. But it is not hidden in any way! Please
explain what is bad about the documentation, why it was so hard to find. If
you didn't know that page some of your rantings may be understandable, but I
don't get WHY it was hard to find.

Jens

Here: Here's a perfect example of a hidden nugget. Had I been able
to find this from the website, I'd have fewer questions.  It's about the
creation of the FlexiFly; it's very complete and very good.  I just
didn't know where it was.

http://crrcsim.berlios.de/wiki/index.php?n=CRRCsim.MakingOfFlexifly

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Brian Fahrländer                 Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
  Evansville, IN                            and GlobalWarming(TM) heretic
  ICQ: 5119262                             AIM/Yahoo/Google: WheelDweller
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 11:36 +0100, Jens Wilhelm Wulf wrote:

> I still don't understand. You said (about 3D editor choices):
>
> > > >     I like that we aren't tied to just ONE graphic editor. We can't
> > > > really do anything about that.

     Musta been a brainfart; sometimes ADD is that way, sorry. I don't
believe the availability of choice was what I was referring to,

> Just go ahead!
> However, due to discussions/questions we have had, most documentation
> issues relate to "how to create a model" and boil down to the fact that
> people are too lazy to read the docs at first and then are not enthusiastic
> enough to do what's already written down. Many don't know enough about
> "engineering".

     Ya know, now *I* wish I had a book I could hand to programmers when
this conversation comes up. Guess the name of the person who has the
most intimate knowledge of this project? I'll bet you've been able to
spell his name since about the time you could walk...

     Just as sure as making mods to mature, working code is just _asking_
for new bugs, asking programmers to keep their documentation-path clear
to newbies is really hard to do. *You* know where everything is, but
you're not leaving a user-friendly trail by which most people can get
started. You can't tell; it's not your fault- your head's SO MUCH MORE
FULL of information than mine, and you've forgotten the 'audit trail' of
information you learned to get there. (Not a complaint; I've done it,
too.)

     But I'm gonna need some keys.

- What's the top-level view of the documentation? Is it a copy from the
last version, edited to be shipped with the next?

- Does an accurate version of the docs exist on the net, or is only an
approximation available? (i.e. Do I have to read only the source to get
'the last word' on something?)

- I'm guessing there's no release schedule, right?

- Is there a difference between general documentation, and developer
documentation? If so, which is the authorative source?

    I have to ask these things; the organization of the website seems to
challenge me. For example:

The page on "Creating Models"
http://crrcsim.berlios.de/wiki/index.php?n=CRRCsim.BasicCRRCSimModelDescription

Provides a nice, concise overview. It's actually kinda a gem, really:
one of the key issues is right out there for everyone to easily see!
Underneath that would be a great place to link to the more complex,
"Airplanes in xml" document.  Not a fixed pointer, but dynamically
pointing to the current version. (Assuming that's available.)

Without knowing the directory tree for this project, where exactly does
it show where this information...the relevant version, is?

-
> Some wrote tutorials. The hint "hey, please contribute to one of the
> existing tutorials" was not followed.

     Will I need special creds to edit the wiki? I'm happy to do that.
>
> > making/editing models,
> This is not easy. See last year's threads. Read them! I don't want to
> explain all this again.

     Yeah...again, a nice place for a pointer to the most accurate
document.

> >     Where are they now? Were they told how to help, or were they not
> > given anything to get them started?

> I don't remember every single person. Some worked on silly things/with silly
> tools/separated from the project although we told them how to do it right,
> then stopped after some time and have not said a word about it. Mostly it
> was about...see next paragraph.

   It's been a lot of man-hours since you've been a newbie to this
project- probably more than you think. I'm happy to help re-org and
clarify as much as I'm able, here.  Just understand, as a newb, it's
gonna take some time.

   If permitted, I'd like to start on a number of FAQs; One for users,
developers, one on just model-making, that kinda thing.

> > Enthusiasm in open source is the
> > most valuable commodity of them all; even the best programmer is useless
> > if he's frustrated and disinterested in his work.

> Yes, enthusiasm is important. Most people came, talked a lot and their
> enthusiasm vanished when they understood that real work is about working
> some hours -- and not talking to the people who do the work.

     Yeah, I know. But you've worked behind other programmers; you know
what it's like learning that key information is in multiple places, then
a day later learning you've been working from an out-of-date copy. I'm
not only facing that sort of problem, but I'm a newb!  :)  I'm sure
that's what dissipated their enthusiasm. Maybe I can help with that.

> >     Well, at the risk of examining a topic that (for the project's sake)
> > is better left unnoticed...why do you do it at all? I think we just
> > found another instance of enthusiasm being in short suppply.

> You think you can replace me or find someone to do it? Go ahead. Sources and
> documentation are there. This is open source.

   No: the suggestion isn't to un-seat you. The suggestion is whether you
have the desire to continue. Make no mistake: this is a good project.
You've done *more* than an adequate job in this. It just seems like
you've stopped _loving_ the work, that's all.


> Answer: well, it depends. Sometimes it's because I want to try out
> something, like the idea of programming this and that in a beautiful way,
> ... but this usually is not about what some user asks for. For example, I
> recently implemented heli and multicopter models because I felt it would be
> fun to do.

     Well, sure. This appears it's not a traditional collaboration
(unlike, say, wikipedia?) It's far more casual.

     What happens if, due to my cheerleading and suggestions,
documentation and model-building, I get several hundred more people
here? Is it gonna drive you nuts, or will you appreciate a few more
developers?  I'd really like to know.


> Because of the fact that so much has been done by me, I feel responsible to
> care about certain user issues/questions.
> If I would not do certain things, currently noone else would. Well, maybe
> Jan, but he already is involved.
>
> This reminds me of something else to do: find people able and willing to
> tweak heli parameters and provide certain base settings. Starting points are
> in documentation/howto_create_models/heli01.html.

     Yeah, _that_one_ I did find at that URL you sent me. If you'll check
your logs, you'll see I fiddled around in there, trying to locate more,
more-useful information, but didn't find the hallway with the cheese...

> > It just sounds like you don't care anymore
> I do care. But I don't want to go through things again and again. In this
> case 'things' are what I mentioned these days: people showing up, me caring
> about them, people not even reading docs, people just disappearing because
> this is not easy enough for them.

     OK, let me, since I'm a newb to the project, edit the webpages, and
start on various FAQs and things. I'll 'stay tuned' to the conversations
on this group and try to add to them when something new comes up.

     It's kinda like when Mom starts baking:
"Turn that on, for these pork chops."
"Ok, what temperature?"
"Oh, just anything."
"Mom, there not an 'anything' button on here...."

     (I'm just looking for a place to start)

     Let me get acclimated; I'll see if I can help. If you think I'm
doing it wrong or there's a problem, just say the word.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Brian Fahrländer                 Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
  Evansville, IN                            and GlobalWarming(TM) heretic
  ICQ: 5119262                             AIM/Yahoo/Google: WheelDweller
------------------------------------------------------------------------

>     Yeah: these are the things a contributor with enthusiasm would ask
> about/mention as he's about to learn several 'languages' for the process
> of creating game media.

I still don't understand. You said (about 3D editor choices):

> > >     I like that we aren't tied to just ONE graphic editor. We can't
> > > really do anything about that.

So you like having a choice, but "We can't really do anything about that."?
I do not understand that.

>     However: I have managed projects. I have organized resources, and I
> have been a cheerleader when projects need them, filling in where I can.
> And the part that you guys don't have time for, like documentation
> changes and proof-reeding,
Just go ahead!
However, due to discussions/questions we have had, most documentation
issues relate to "how to create a model" and boil down to the fact that
people are too lazy to read the docs at first and then are not enthusiastic
enough to do what's already written down. Many don't know enough about
"engineering".

Some wrote tutorials. The hint "hey, please contribute to one of the
existing tutorials" was not followed.

> making/editing models,
This is not easy. See last year's threads. Read them! I don't want to
explain all this again.

Read the tutorials, try things out, do it, use AVL, calculate moments of
inertia, write the best tutorial to replace all the existing ones.


>     Where are they now? Were they told how to help, or were they not
> given anything to get them started?
I don't remember every single person. Some worked on silly things/with silly
tools/separated from the project although we told them how to do it right,
then stopped after some time and have not said a word about it. Mostly it
was about...see next paragraph.

> Enthusiasm in open source is the
> most valuable commodity of them all; even the best programmer is useless
> if he's frustrated and disinterested in his work.
Yes, enthusiasm is important. Most people came, talked a lot and their
enthusiasm vanished when they understood that real work is about working
some hours -- and not talking to the people who do the work.

>     Well, at the risk of examining a topic that (for the project's sake)
> is better left unnoticed...why do you do it at all? I think we just
> found another instance of enthusiasm being in short suppply.
You think you can replace me or find someone to do it? Go ahead. Sources and
documentation are there. This is open source.

Answer: well, it depends. Sometimes it's because I want to try out
something, like the idea of programming this and that in a beautiful way,
... but this usually is not about what some user asks for. For example, I
recently implemented heli and multicopter models because I felt it would be
fun to do.

Because of the fact that so much has been done by me, I feel responsible to
care about certain user issues/questions.
If I would not do certain things, currently noone else would. Well, maybe
Jan, but he already is involved.

This reminds me of something else to do: find people able and willing to
tweak heli parameters and provide certain base settings. Starting points are
in documentation/howto_create_models/heli01.html.

> It just sounds like you don't care anymore
I do care. But I don't want to go through things again and again. In this
case 'things' are what I mentioned these days: people showing up, me caring
about them, people not even reading docs, people just disappearing because
this is not easy enough for them.

Jens

>    Can the planes be fixed?
Sure.

> It might be a good place for me to start,
> since it wouldn't involve graphics...is it known, the nature of the
> problem with these?
Not to me.

Jens

On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 08:26 +0100, Jens Wilhelm Wulf wrote:

> >     I like that we aren't tied to just ONE graphic editor. We can't
> > really do anything about that.

> Seems I don't get what you want to express with these sentences.
> Can you explain?

     Yeah: these are the things a contributor with enthusiasm would ask
about/mention as he's about to learn several 'languages' for the process
of creating game media.

> >     Right now there's a model of a "Sprit" 2M glider. Loaded into the
> > latest 0.9.10 version, it doesn't show up, nor does it say why.
> Maybe 'spirit' had been removed from the 0.9.10 version for a reason. If it
> was part of your 0.9.10 installation, go and ask the one who build the
> package.
> Here, the old spirit runs fine using the current development version and I'm
> just compiling 0.9.10 to try it...

     Yeah, my bad; I must have gotten something wrong. In the other
letter I mentioned how I re-organized (flushed) and then reloaded
(filled) all the models I had. It's in there now; sorry.


> There is a lot of 'we' in your mail, which makes me expect that you have
> just become a contributor to CRRCSim.
> Well, I'm curious about your contribution. Let me just state some things
> BEFORE it gets serious:
>
>   - enhancements in CRRCSim mostly need to be achieved by programming, not
>     talking

     I'm not able to program. Although I once developed x86 embedded
processors, and once used to write in C, it's just been too many years
for me to help with that.

     However: I have managed projects. I have organized resources, and I
have been a cheerleader when projects need them, filling in where I can.
And the part that you guys don't have time for, like documentation
changes and proof-reeding, making/editing models, testing and getting
businesses interested in funding model-making (or whatever!) is
something with which I'd like to help.

>   - currently, only Jan and me are doing some programming on a regular basis
>     (which may mean some hours every two months, maybe more). We have done
>     much more before, but one needs spare time to do so.
>   - serious programmers are welcome!

     Well, not me, sorry.

>   - several people have come across this mailing list, making lots of noise.
>     Talking about features they would like CRRCSim to have, how to improve,
>     what to do -- and doing nothing at all. If I would have spend the time
>     needed for those conversations on programming instead, that would have
>     been good for CRRCSim. But those people have just annoyed me in the end
>     and taken my spare time.

     Where are they now? Were they told how to help, or were they not
given anything to get them started? Enthusiasm in open source is the
most valuable commodity of them all; even the best programmer is useless
if he's frustrated and disinterested in his work.

>   - I mostly program on CRRCSim and test it. I hardly use it myself -- on
>     rcgroups you wrote that you enjoy CRRCSim for several hours a day. Chances
>     are high that you already used CRRCSim more than me! For me this
>     currently is not a fun job. I'm supporting other people's needs -- for
>     free.

     Well, at the risk of examining a topic that (for the project's sake)
is better left unnoticed...why do you do it at all? I think we just
found another instance of enthusiasm being in short suppply.

     Sadly, that's most of what I bring to the table, until I can work
out some tools and learn where things go.  This a great work, regardless
of where it came from, etc. I do, in fact, really enjoy it. I can't say
that about Firefox, Empathy, or Evolution...those are just tools.

     This simulator gives me the chance to turn-hard into the wind, pick
up the nose during the transition, and look for heat across the field-
something I can't get since I lost my career, and something no other
software can do.

> So if things move in that direction again, I'll try to ignore it all.

     I have a small number of tools, a desire to 'polish the apple' and
boost the project. And working as my Mom's caregiver, I have a lot of
loose time. I find some of the documentation...accurate documentation a
little hard to find. But with a little organizational info, I'm here to
help.  It just sounds like you don't care anymore, to be brutally
honest; I hope I'm wrong.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Brian Fahrländer                 Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
  Evansville, IN                            and GlobalWarming(TM) heretic
  ICQ: 5119262                             AIM/Yahoo/Google: WheelDweller
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 08:56 +0100, Jens Wilhelm Wulf wrote:
> >     Right now there's a model of a "Sprit" 2M glider. Loaded into the
> > latest 0.9.10 version, it doesn't show up, nor does it say why. I think
> > if it doesn't match certain criteria (like, the author's estimation of
> > how poorly it'll work) it should exist, but be greyed-out and indicating
> > a problem.  WHAT the problem is, isn't important.  It's enough to know
> > it's not ready.
> So I tested with 0.9.10 and the spirit like it was before it was removed pre
> 0.9.10: it works. If I remove objects/spirit.ac the dialog
> "options|airplane" says "cannot load geometry" instead of displaying the
preview.
> I cannot replicate the buggy behaviour you describe.

    Yeah; I was just re-loading the models once more to see if I'd missed
a step. "Spirit" is solid...how I managed to extract two archives to
different places, I'm not sure.  (Sorry)

    I see this elsewhere; especially in FlightGear where nearly the exact
same work is being done. Some craft are wireframes with physics, others
are complete works, clearly having been done by people who used to call
the A-10 their 'homes' much of the time. There, as I suppose it will be
here, the depth of people's contributions is going to be important to
actual program execution.

    However, the re-organizing experience has given me reason to try out
the "obsolete" aircraft; those delta darts are quite interesting, and
fun to fly. I suppose they're obsolete because under the right
conditions they spin like crazy.  :)

    Can the planes be fixed?  It might be a good place for me to start,
since it wouldn't involve graphics...is it known, the nature of the
problem with these?

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Brian Fahrländer                 Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
  Evansville, IN                            and GlobalWarming(TM) heretic
  ICQ: 5119262                             AIM/Yahoo/Google: WheelDweller
------------------------------------------------------------------------

>     Right now there's a model of a "Sprit" 2M glider. Loaded into the
> latest 0.9.10 version, it doesn't show up, nor does it say why. I think
> if it doesn't match certain criteria (like, the author's estimation of
> how poorly it'll work) it should exist, but be greyed-out and indicating
> a problem.  WHAT the problem is, isn't important.  It's enough to know
> it's not ready.
So I tested with 0.9.10 and the spirit like it was before it was removed pre
0.9.10: it works. If I remove objects/spirit.ac the dialog
"options|airplane" says "cannot load geometry" instead of displaying the
preview.
I cannot replicate the buggy behaviour you describe.

Jens

Hi Brian,

>     Maybe it's time we _talk_ about the process.
See below.


>     Now, I'm not talking about an instant, change-the-world look at
> these parts....just keeping the topic alive, so that when we think
> strategically, don't forget this.  Like, the next time we make some
> major change to the code, we consider the impact it has on our 'doors'.
See below.

>     I like that we aren't tied to just ONE graphic editor. We can't
> really do anything about that.
Seems I don't get what you want to express with these sentences.
Can you explain?

>     Right now there's a model of a "Sprit" 2M glider. Loaded into the
> latest 0.9.10 version, it doesn't show up, nor does it say why.
Maybe 'spirit' had been removed from the 0.9.10 version for a reason. If it
was part of your 0.9.10 installation, go and ask the one who build the
package.
Here, the old spirit runs fine using the current development version and I'm
just compiling 0.9.10 to try it...

>     The more custom models meet criteria, the more "done" the model is.
> There's value in this, no? If we gave vendors some room for advertising
> their model, they might be willing to PAY someone to do these for them,
> and that's got value.  :)
There is a lot of 'we' in your mail, which makes me expect that you have
just become a contributor to CRRCSim.
Well, I'm curious about your contribution. Let me just state some things
BEFORE it gets serious:

   - enhancements in CRRCSim mostly need to be achieved by programming, not
     talking
   - currently, only Jan and me are doing some programming on a regular basis
     (which may mean some hours every two months, maybe more). We have done
     much more before, but one needs spare time to do so.
   - serious programmers are welcome!
   - several people have come across this mailing list, making lots of noise.
     Talking about features they would like CRRCSim to have, how to improve,
     what to do -- and doing nothing at all. If I would have spend the time
     needed for those conversations on programming instead, that would have
     been good for CRRCSim. But those people have just annoyed me in the end
     and taken my spare time.
   - I mostly program on CRRCSim and test it. I hardly use it myself -- on
     rcgroups you wrote that you enjoy CRRCSim for several hours a day. Chances
     are high that you already used CRRCSim more than me! For me this
     currently is not a fun job. I'm supporting other people's needs -- for
     free.

So if things move in that direction again, I'll try to ignore it all.

Best regards,
Jens

Just an example of my attempts to do what I can, to help out.  Right
now there's not much, but eventually I'll get there.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13733314&posted=1#post13733314

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Brian Fahrländer                 Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
  Evansville, IN                            and GlobalWarming(TM) heretic
  ICQ: 5119262                             AIM/Yahoo/Google: WheelDweller
------------------------------------------------------------------------

mmmm McKenzie

Maybe IF you had actually read any the mail over the last four years  that YOU
signed up to receive AND actually got to the end, you might have seen how YOU
must unsubscribe.

You're welcome by the way and have a nice day.





Mckenzie Lawrencve wrote:
> Please fuck off and stop sending me emails, ive been receiving them for the
last 4 years!!!!
>
> Thanks.
>
> To: crrcsim@yahoogroups.com
> From: wheeldweller@...
> Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 17:40:46 -0600
> Subject: [crrcsim] Wishlist: "RADAR" upgrade?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>           The little "RADAR"-like scope at the bottom is essential for
>
> determining wind direction. Without it, there'd almost be no way to know
>
> it.  But since I can't tell where things are, because I'm not bending my
>
> neck, nor turning my body, I can often bring the plane down in a place
>
> that's not green grass, but a parking lot!
>
>
>
> Would it be hard to model on that same scope, the 'footprint' of the
>
> objects on the ground?  Nothing fancy- just dots to show where the
>
> outhouse, cars, and whatever are.
>
>
>
> Like I said- nothing fancy...green dots for actual "objects"; that
>
> way we can discern north-from-south (or at least grass from parking
>
> lot!)
>
>
>
> :)
>
>
>
>

On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 13:02 +1300, Mckenzie Lawrencve wrote:
> Please fuck off and stop sending me emails, ive been receiving them for the
last 4 years!!!!

    My, how insensitive of me. I apologize for my rudeness.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Brian Fahrländer                 Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
  Evansville, IN                            and GlobalWarming(TM) heretic
  ICQ: 5119262                             AIM/Yahoo/Google: WheelDweller
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please fuck off and stop sending me emails, ive been receiving them for the last
4 years!!!!

Thanks.

To: crrcsim@yahoogroups.com
From: wheeldweller@...
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 17:40:46 -0600
Subject: [crrcsim] Wishlist: "RADAR" upgrade?




























           The little "RADAR"-like scope at the bottom is essential for

determining wind direction. Without it, there'd almost be no way to know

it.  But since I can't tell where things are, because I'm not bending my

neck, nor turning my body, I can often bring the plane down in a place

that's not green grass, but a parking lot!



Would it be hard to model on that same scope, the 'footprint' of the

objects on the ground?  Nothing fancy- just dots to show where the

outhouse, cars, and whatever are.



Like I said- nothing fancy...green dots for actual "objects"; that

way we can discern north-from-south (or at least grass from parking

lot!)



:)



--

----------------------------------------------------------

  Brian Fahrländer                 Christian, Conservative, and Technomad

  Evansville, IN                            and GlobalWarming(TM) heretic

  ICQ: 5119262                             AIM/Yahoo/Google: WheelDweller

----------------------------------------------------------


















_________________________________________________________________
Feeling the financial pinch? Check on MSN NZ Money for a hand
http://money.msn.co.nz

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

After having posted it once, I felt it important to discuss it a
while before opening it again.

     Here's the scenario:

     My joystick, a Logitech Wingman Extreme Pro, calibrates properly and
does a marvelous job of all the usual axes. As more of a glider guy,
throttles are a little foreign to me, and I put the throttle axis onto
spoilers.

     The joystick's working; verbosity tells me I'm changing the
deflection, because the numbers change.

     The model in question is the one that has spoiler support: The
Skorpion.  The Skorpion definition calls out one line for flaps, one
line for spoilers.

     AND, I've multiplied by ten the numbers used there.

     AND I'm flying straight and level in this condition, looking for a
pitch change ('cause that's normal for R/C craft) as well as a speed
change, because of the added drag. It's as if I'm not touching the
control, but I am.

     I thought I just had a file out of place, but I conferred with Jan
and he suggested I post it.

     Any ideas? Surely I'm doing something wrong, but what?

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Brian Fahrländer                 Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
  Evansville, IN                            and GlobalWarming(TM) heretic
  ICQ: 5119262                             AIM/Yahoo/Google: WheelDweller
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The little "RADAR"-like scope at the bottom is essential for
determining wind direction. Without it, there'd almost be no way to know
it.  But since I can't tell where things are, because I'm not bending my
neck, nor turning my body, I can often bring the plane down in a place
that's not green grass, but a parking lot!

     Would it be hard to model on that same scope, the 'footprint' of the
objects on the ground?  Nothing fancy- just dots to show where the
outhouse, cars, and whatever are.

     Like I said- nothing fancy...green dots for actual "objects"; that
way we can discern north-from-south (or at least grass from parking
lot!)

     :)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Brian Fahrländer                 Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
  Evansville, IN                            and GlobalWarming(TM) heretic
  ICQ: 5119262                             AIM/Yahoo/Google: WheelDweller
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 16:50:56 -0500
Chris Stoddart <chris.stoddart@...> wrote:

> Some years back I wrote a translator to go from 3D DXF surfaces to OGL.  The
> OGL files were quite usable in crrcsim at that time.  Does the current
> version retain support for OGL defined models?  If so this might open up a
> path for general CAD tools to be used to create models though not with all
> the flashy "textures".  A more general translator would be needed as mine
> was specialised for output created with RcCAD, see http://www.rccad.com .  I
> wrote several free addins for RcCAD using VB6

I don't know about the "OGL" format. Do you know which version of CRRCsim you
used?
Did it use .air files or .xml files to describe a model? If it used .xml files,
it
was a CRRCsim version using PLIB to load and display the models, like today.
This
means that OGL should still load fine.

On the other hand, the AC3D file format is quite simple and well-documented. I
once
wrote a converter in Perl that created AC3D files from the geometry description
in
the old CRRCsim's .air files. Worked quite good, although I had to fine-tune the
models in AC3D to fix the surface normals.

I guess there's also a DXF-3D import extension for Blender.

Kind regards,
Jan R.

On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 16:50 -0500, Chris Stoddart wrote:
> Some years back I wrote a translator to go from 3D DXF surfaces to OGL.  The
> OGL files were quite usable in crrcsim at that time.  Does the current
> version retain support for OGL defined models?  If so this might open up a
> path for general CAD tools to be used to create models though not with all
> the flashy "textures".  A more general translator would be needed as mine
> was specialised for output created with RcCAD, see http://www.rccad.com .  I
> wrote several free addins for RcCAD using VB6

     Ooh!  Now *that's* the spirit!  GoodOnYa!

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Brian Fahrländer                 Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
  Evansville, IN                            and GlobalWarming(TM) heretic
  ICQ: 5119262                             AIM/Yahoo/Google: WheelDweller
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some years back I wrote a translator to go from 3D DXF surfaces to OGL.  The
OGL files were quite usable in crrcsim at that time.  Does the current
version retain support for OGL defined models?  If so this might open up a
path for general CAD tools to be used to create models though not with all
the flashy "textures".  A more general translator would be needed as mine
was specialised for output created with RcCAD, see http://www.rccad.com .  I
wrote several free addins for RcCAD using VB6

best wishes,
Chris




On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Brian Fahrlander <wheeldweller@...>wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 19:01 +0100, Slowhand wrote:
>
> > If you have ambition and some spare time, I recommend that you try it.
>
> I was once a systems administrator; not just a guy who watches
> servers, but watches _systems_. That included how the secretaries told
> the managers their mail had arrived. Just because there isn't silicon
> involved, doesn't mean it's not part of the effort.
>
> Similarly, the cost of building planes is high right now. It's
> *normal*, but if we want this project to grow, it's a challenge; a road
> block.
>
> Maybe it's time we _talk_ about the process. Adding scenery and
> planes are like 'doors' to the project. I can see this, 'cause I'm new
> to it.
>
> Now, I'm not talking about an instant, change-the-world look at
> these parts....just keeping the topic alive, so that when we think
> strategically, don't forget this. Like, the next time we make some
> major change to the code, we consider the impact it has on our 'doors'.
>
> I like that we aren't tied to just ONE graphic editor. We can't
> really do anything about that. But can we, on the flight-data and model
> preparedness?
>
> Right now there's a model of a "Sprit" 2M glider. Loaded into the
> latest 0.9.10 version, it doesn't show up, nor does it say why. I think
> if it doesn't match certain criteria (like, the author's estimation of
> how poorly it'll work) it should exist, but be greyed-out and indicating
> a problem. WHAT the problem is, isn't important. It's enough to know
> it's not ready.
>
> A kind of 'checker' routine would learn, based on current code
> revisions, an assessment of the model:
>
> - A thumbnail for new people to SEE what it looks like
> - Data for the manufacturer, ads for vendor-sponsored aircraft
> - Checked (reasonable) flight data
> - Author information, including web pages, etc
>
> The more custom models meet criteria, the more "done" the model is.
> There's value in this, no? If we gave vendors some room for advertising
> their model, they might be willing to PAY someone to do these for them,
> and that's got value. :)
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Brian Fahrländer Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
> Evansville, IN and GlobalWarming(TM) heretic
> ICQ: 5119262 AIM/Yahoo/Google: WheelDweller
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 19:01 +0100, Slowhand wrote:

> If you have ambition and some spare time, I recommend that you try it.

     I was once a systems administrator; not just a guy who watches
servers, but watches _systems_. That included how the secretaries told
the managers their mail had arrived. Just because there isn't silicon
involved, doesn't mean it's not part of the effort.

     Similarly, the cost of building planes is high right now. It's
*normal*, but if we want this project to grow, it's a challenge; a road
block.

     Maybe it's time we _talk_ about the process.  Adding scenery and
planes are like 'doors' to the project. I can see this, 'cause I'm new
to it.

     Now, I'm not talking about an instant, change-the-world look at
these parts....just keeping the topic alive, so that when we think
strategically, don't forget this.  Like, the next time we make some
major change to the code, we consider the impact it has on our 'doors'.

     I like that we aren't tied to just ONE graphic editor. We can't
really do anything about that.  But can we, on the flight-data and model
preparedness?

     Right now there's a model of a "Sprit" 2M glider. Loaded into the
latest 0.9.10 version, it doesn't show up, nor does it say why. I think
if it doesn't match certain criteria (like, the author's estimation of
how poorly it'll work) it should exist, but be greyed-out and indicating
a problem.  WHAT the problem is, isn't important.  It's enough to know
it's not ready.

A kind of 'checker' routine would learn, based on current code
revisions, an assessment of the model:

     - A thumbnail for new people to SEE what it looks like
     - Data for the manufacturer, ads for vendor-sponsored aircraft
     - Checked (reasonable) flight data
     - Author information, including web pages, etc

     The more custom models meet criteria, the more "done" the model is.
There's value in this, no? If we gave vendors some room for advertising
their model, they might be willing to PAY someone to do these for them,
and that's got value.  :)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Brian Fahrländer                 Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
  Evansville, IN                            and GlobalWarming(TM) heretic
  ICQ: 5119262                             AIM/Yahoo/Google: WheelDweller
------------------------------------------------------------------------

> FYI, there was a bug report on this topic yesterday:
I know, Brian told me about it. When I took a look this evening, you had already
closed it.

Thanks,
Jens

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 16:02:15 +0100
Jens Wilhelm Wulf <jens_w2@...> wrote:

> I'll answer your questions, of course, and might update the doc accordingly.
>
> Just see Skorpion.xml and the doc:
>
>  
http://hg.berlios.de/repos/crrcsim/raw-file/tip/documentation/file_format/index.\
html

FYI, there was a bug report on this topic yesterday:

http://developer.berlios.de/bugs/?func=detailbug&bug_id=16505&group_id=9957

Kind regards,
Jan R.

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 15:52:14 +0100
Jens Wilhelm Wulf <jens_w2@...> wrote:

> >     I was 'born' on CP/M, but now days it's all Linux. My license to
> > AC3D has expired, and I'm penniless. Anyone got a lead on a 3D package
> > that's nice for this work?
> I only know that there is blender, but I am hardly able to use it.

Hi all,

I started modelling with AC3D because it offers an intuitive interface, but
after my trial license expired I stopped using it. I looked for something
different (and free) and was quite disappointed when I fired up Blender for
the first time. It seemed to be impossible to learn. I tried Wings 3D, but
didn't find it useful for "technical" (CAD-like) modelling. So I tried
Blender again. Found an online tutorial (well, hundreds of them...) and
worked through it. And soon I found out that the interface is indeed very
powerful and easy to use once you've learned the most important keystrokes
and the meaning of all those little buttons and icons.

If you have ambition and some spare time, I recommend that you try it.

Kind regards,
Jan R.

Hi Brian,

>     I was 'born' on CP/M, but now days it's all Linux. My license to
> AC3D has expired, and I'm penniless. Anyone got a lead on a 3D package
> that's nice for this work?
I only know that there is blender, but I am hardly able to use it.

Best regards,
Jens

Hi Brian,

I'm forwarding this answer to the list.

>   Maybe it's because they're new; spoilers are new to the version I'm
> running on Ubuntu: 0.9.10. I was wondering if you could point out how to
> deal with the spoilers, the way you explained the flaps and things?
Well...no, I think this is easy enough to be explained in the file format
doc. Currently I don't see what needs to be written down in more detail, but
I'll answer your questions, of course, and might update the doc accordingly.

Just see Skorpion.xml and the doc:

  
http://hg.berlios.de/repos/crrcsim/raw-file/tip/documentation/file_format/index.\
html


Best regards,
Jens

Right now I'm limited; I have no CAD package, and I barely have any
idea where to start, but I have one component that's worth more than
gold: ambition.

     I'd like to generate/donate two major types of planes- see what you
think:

     1. Goldberg's Gentle Lady. Sure, not something to which one aspires
to one day tame, but a VERY common craft with lots of possible
modifications any kid on the street can work out.  It's also a great
place for me to learn; I think I'll be picking the Apogee apart to learn
how to build this.

     2. Airtonic's Aquila. Wow, I loved this plane. I can't tell you how
my heart sunk when the radio failed and it flew straight into the ground
from about 100 feet.  :<  It was 16 years old, and way out of print when
I got my hands on it. It'll be a challenge, but the same reason we're
all here: a labor of love.

     I was 'born' on CP/M, but now days it's all Linux. My license to
AC3D has expired, and I'm penniless. Anyone got a lead on a 3D package
that's nice for this work?

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Brian Fahrländer                 Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
  Evansville, IN                            and GlobalWarming(TM) heretic
  ICQ: 5119262                             AIM/Yahoo/Google: WheelDweller
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:42:14 -0400
Chris Stoddart <chris.stoddart@...> wrote:

> On the texturing issue ... I ran into some aspects of this when I was
> converting from WRL from RcCAD to Direct X and DXF.  The issue had to do
> with the direction of the outward normals.   I had to redo the order of the
> nodes in the triangle and quadrilateral polygons.
>

Hi all,

I've finally had the time to do some more research on loading .x files. One
thing
that was missing was the ability to rotate a model while loading it. This was
easy to implement in CRRCsim. I can provide a patch if someone wants to try it.
But
it lead to more problems:

- We already have the "CG" translation setting in the XML file. This does not
only
   affect the 3D model position, but also the hardpoint settings (which is
correct).
   In combination with a rotation, things are getting messy: do we rotate first
and
   then apply the CG translation, or do we translate first and then rotate? How
   does this effect the hardpoints? Do we have to apply the rotation matrix to
   all hardpoints as well? I think so. But doesn't this get very, very hard to
   describe and document? Will anyone be able to fully understand the interaction
   between different coordinate systems of different modelling tools, CG,
Rotation
   and hardpoint locations?

- The model looks too small, so we need to scale it as well. Makes things even
   worse (see above). And I don't know if PLIB handles scaling correctly
(regarding
   normal vectors and boundary boxes).

- The loaded model still has the texturing issue, I didn't find a solution yet.

So I think I won't commit the changes regarding rotation. If someone wants to
convert a model from FMS to CRRCsim, he must use a 3D modelling tool to
determine
the hardpoint locations. If he manages to load the .x file into the tool, it
should be easy to perform all scaling and rotating there, before picking the
hardpoint data and saving as AC3D file.

If there's no tool capable of handling the conversion, I could write a small
command line tool that uses PLIB to do the conversion, including a hard-coded
scaling and rotation. But this will still leave the texturing problem and
picking
hardpoint coordinates to the end-user.

Kind regards,
Jan R.

Hi Jan

   Continuing my earlier train of thought, the models I create for CRRCSIM will
most probably be in two scales 1:5 and 1:10. This makes comparisons easier
between models which is what having different models is about.

Note the TOP GUN R/C competition models are mostly 1:5 - it's a nice size to
display detail and have more realistic flying. Check out the videos on You Tube
for realistic flying especially the Wyvern.

A 10 metre span works out to 1 metre at 1:10 and 2 metres at 1:5 which is a nice
size as well.

Having said that I have never flown or owned an RC model ( just a control line
and free flight model)

At the other end of the scale there is the Plantranco 1:48 and 1:72 models -
amazing stuff

G

--- In crrcsim@yahoogroups.com, Jens Wilhelm Wulf <jens_w2@...> wrote:
>
>
> > What is the standard scale that should be used? It always annoys me to see
> > scale models of different sizes: 1:20, 1:12, 1:6 etc there is no way to
> > compare say a 1:12 Spitfire with a 1:5 WWII biplane and a 1:50 DC 3. In
> > CRRCSIM I think a series should be created : say 1:12 and 1:10. The
> > configuration files can be edited within the scale groups
> CRRCSim is an RC model simulator. RC model pilots build different scales and
> use different techniques/materials. Flight behaviour depends on both of
> them -- so there must not be a standard scale for CRRCSim.
>
>
> > Should new models be uploaded to the WIKI or te Yahoo group?
> I don't know whether it is possible to upload models to the wiki (Jan?).
> People have published models on their private webspace and linked from the
> wiki, though.
>
> The yahoo group has been used to upload models, however it causes
> maintenance problems because of the fact that they are difficult to be
> removed (in case it is outdated or has been moved into main distribution
> etc). The yahoo group is prone to be filled up with junk, so I don't like it
> (just my personal opinion).
>
> Best regards,
> Jens
>