Devs real question
-
This post is deleted! -
Just my 2 cents for open source, the best way is to start coding and share , not begging others to share their work. Even if BMS wanted to share, BMS is restricted by a commercial license, and like DeeJay pointed, it’s never going to happen that the IP owner would change the license and lose business. Too many “project managers” don’t help, either
-
Even if BMS wanted to share, BMS is restricted by a commercial license, and like DeeJay pointed, it’s never going to happen that the IP owner would change the license and lose business.
As you said: “Even if”.
It is not (or not only) a problem of IP or licence. It is just that BMS has absolutely no wishes nor any plans to go OpenSource. Whatever the licence says or the IP owner want … -
Will you stop talking about Open source please??? Open source may be GREAT for other projects, but not for Falcon code. Trust me, there are ZILLION ways to ruin everything, and thinking about small discussions here, everyone here has 10 opinions about each subject. Can you imagine how many EXEs you will have floating around if we go open source?? I think it’ll be a number so that everyone will fly MP with himself only because all other version won’t match! :mrgreen:
-
As you said: “Even if”.
It is not (or not only) a problem of IP or licence. It is just that BMS has absolutely no wishes nor any plans to go OpenSource. Whatever what the licence says or the IP owner want …Yeah that’s what i meant, the devs has rejected this ad nauseam so I think the conversation is pointless
-
Will you stop talking about Open source please??? Open source may be GREAT for other projects, but not for Falcon code. Trust me, there are ZILLION ways to ruin everything, and thinking about small discussions here, everyone here has 10 opinions about each subject. Can you imagine how many EXEs you will have floating around if we go open source?? I think it’ll be a number so that everyone will fly MP with himself only because all other version won’t match! :mrgreen:
Thats also the point, to have freedom to do whatever you want and fork if necessary, in the end however its up to the IP holder and the developer to pick a license, not to the community.
-
Thats also the point, to have freedom to do whatever you want and fork if necessary, in the end however its up to the IP holder and the developer to pick a license, not to the community.
That’s total BS
Open source would be the best and quickest way to kill falcon forever
History has proven that the way we go is the right way
You would never have had BMS at the level it is with open source concept
It’s not a question of IP or licence this is only a question of common VISION and COMPETENCE
-
That’s total BS
Open source would be the best and quickest way to kill falcon forever
History has proven that the way we go is the right way
You would never have had BMS at the level it is with open source concept
It’s not a question of IP or licence this is only a question of common VISION and COMPETENCE
Like I said, your software your choice , but it’s quite a grotesque statement being BMS ( initially ) based on leaked software.
-
Just listen friends:
Open source is NOT to be considered … and WON’T happens.
And nope, it is not a good solution … It is certainly the worse and the one that will kill Falcon4. GUARANTIED. Some tried, and if you want, you can even try yourself right now. SP4 code is available. Try to do something major in open source … and report for results.
So just stop speaking about shitty open source stuff, you are simply loosing your time. And even IF it was a good solution, it just won’t happens anyway.
But what about real open source Dee-Jay, not that sticky sweet American BBQ Source or that Smelly Asian Fish Source.
We want plain and simple Tomato Source, the real deal and a fair dinkum meat pie slavered with it.
-
You can try and revive Open Falcon…that should get you where you want to go…yeah…
-
But what about real open source Dee-Jay, not that sticky sweet American BBQ Source or that Smelly Asian Fish Source.
We want plain and simple Tomato Source, the real deal and a fair dinkum meat pie slavered with it.
You can have a choice between DCS (Dinkum Cocktail Sauce) or BMS (Barbecue Mushroom Sauce ) on your dinkum
-
You can have a choice between DCS (Dinkum Cocktail Sauce) or BMS (Barbecue Mushroom Sauce ) on your dinkum
IF the Barbecue Mushroom Sauce (BMS) mushrooms are smoked with a light flavored wood such as apple or cherry, it would yield a superior product! One worthy of a mass produced, plastic squeezable bottle. Add some scorching hot nightshades for heat, and you could call it BMS: Afterburner or VR-AB or Sierra Hotel - promising to keep the consumer riveted for the next 12 hours.
-
Like I said, your software your choice , but it’s quite a grotesque statement being BMS ( initially ) based on leaked software.
What is grotesque ?
You have no idea what developing falcon 4 code source means and you pretend to explain us how it should be done?
What is grotesque here ?
People are talking open source if it was the best way to get development running , this is ridiculous. Falcon 4.0 was open source , guess who stays at the table at the end and delivers ?
For your information the leaked code IS open source , i am still waiting for improvement on that branch
ROFLMAO
BMS is what is it because BMS is selecting people that share the same vision of what a combat simulator should be. This vision can not be shared in open source
-
FYI, here is one example of succeeded open source FS.
http://wiki.flightgear.org/FlightGear_Git
I am still not sure how they manage to maintain one master branch as a mainstream version not to separating MP. Github has “pull request” so repository owner can accept/decline changes someone made. You can also accept or decline contributors. However, each source code can be improved and compiled as its own version.
I am afraid of BMS separating its version, or loosing its vision like DCS does. But I also am interested in its source code. Like instead of doing so I deciphered some binary files and made my own launcher…
-
Possibly the most pointless thread I’ve seen since November 26th, 2012.
-
I am still not sure how they manage to maintain one master branch as a mainstream version not to separating MP. Github itself have “pull request” so repository owner can accept/decline its change, but each source code can be improved and compiled as its own version.
Flight gear does it the same as most such things do: the fact that the MP community is on the stable master branch, so the draw there is the players. Its most beneficial to submit your changes upstream for implementation, rather than to fork your own version and not share those changes.
With FOSS, you have the freedom to do that, but you lock yourself out of the community of players by doing so. This isnt automatically a bad thing. Even BMS understands strict versioning controls - which is why by going to 4.33 U5, you lock yourself out of the community of U4 players.
Discussion of FOSS conventions is a useful thing I think. Discussing how it could work for BMS to be free and open source, is not really useful any longer I think. Not unless the IP owner decides to get involved with such.
-
With FOSS, you have the freedom to do that, but you lock yourself out of the community of players by doing so. This isnt automatically a bad thing. Even BMS understands strict versioning controls - which is why by going to 4.33 U5, you lock yourself out of the community of U4 players.
So technically is there any MP lock function by checking EXE binary comparison? like BMS MP checks AC data comparison?
-
So technically is there any MP lock function by checking EXE binary comparison? like BMS MP checks AC data comparison?
I dont know of an explicit one in the case of Flight Gear, but there is an implied one. Purely at the level of MP incompatibility. If you change the client simulation, the server will end up having stability issues such as crashes, random disconnects, etc.
If you as a third party to a development team running a FOSS project, decide to fork that project, and intentionally choose to make your version incompatible with the upstream, and then distribute your version, its not going to end up very popular at all due to the lack of compatibility. Its then locked into its small community of devotees. Then if your version is not pulling from the main version, which as yours has been significantly rewritten is pointless, you also miss out on all the features later on implemented upstream. You then have to try to figure out how to implement those features, or watch your community get smaller as folks abandon your version and go back to the upstream community.
Long story short, any open source project which has a strong community userbase is always going to have been built around a team which is committed to stability and quality. The goal of forking the source then being to improve and contribute to that upstream version, not to build your own private version.
-
As a (Java) developer I can guarantee you that open source is not the solution … At all
Check the leaked 1.08 source code … Try to understand the architecture of the different layers …
IMO a massive refactoring has been made by BMS before 4.32 and 4.33.
A such task of refactoring is too huge … And IMO impossible in Open Source.
How many of u guys are mastering C++ ? -
IMO a massive refactoring has been made by BMS before 4.32 and 4.33.
A such task of refactoring is too huge … And IMO impossible in Open Source.Impossible for BMS anyway. Not without the owner of that IP offering their code under such a license. Until they decide to throw away the revenue stream they purchased, its not an option.