Devs real question
-
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 itās 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 āpull requestā 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 launcherā¦
-
Possibly the most pointless thread Iāve 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 āpull requestā 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 ā¦ At all
Check the leaked 1.08 source code ā¦ Try to understand the architecture of the different layers ā¦
IMO a massive refactoring has been made by BMS before 4.32 and 4.33.
A such task of refactoring is too huge ā¦ 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 ā¦ 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.
-
the time to fly is already too little, so i think itās better study the manuals than lines and lines of code.
-
Hmmm open source guys say and want.
Ppl asking for it are u C++ coders? Or u hope like Mana from the sky coders will drop from the sky and start coding and create a better sim than BMS does?Some might get interested, but once they explore and comprehend the magnitude and the monster falcon is it will need great passion and devotion. Not impossible but a very very long shot.
You want to help by coding?
Get the latest free code, sure itās older than BMS, but there are routines untouched since the initial leak.
Get in to it and try to make those better or spot bugs.
Try to optimize things that are ouch.
Master and create a new UI for Falcon with multiple resolutions support and maybe some open architecture features that could help for future development and implementation.
For long time a tool to quickly and easily update database files for theaters itās needed. This is when a new version comes from BMS that has compatibility issues or major updates on the vanilla database. Master it and provide the code to the team or the community.
If the tool and code is available the updates will be easier to implement, and if not available the initial coder someone will volunteer to pick it up at some point since he will have the know how or the prerequisites instead of nothing and going blind.
So the team has a going changing itās course and demanding it or suggesting it will not do much.
The old code is there free, do your thing by your own, or support it by putting your little stone to make it better in the way u can do to help devs and the community.
Many took that path and am sure that devs when they saw serious interest they helped greatly. They help even guys with no much experience on coding and even community members help each other.
Many good examples lately with very promising projects going on.
Some are already published others are awaited for as they are still WIP.
So decide how you want to help, you have the situation at hand. Guys told how things are, and they are determined, thereās no need to try to persuade them, those talks were done many many times. Even I was for open source once in the past when I was blind.
So decide and act, not just talks.Ī£ĻĪ¬Ī»ĪøĪ·ĪŗĪµ Ī±ĻĻ ĻĪæ MI 5 Ī¼ĪæĻ ĻĻĪ·ĻĪ¹Ī¼ĪæĻĪæĪ¹ĻĪ½ĻĪ±Ļ Tapatalk
-
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 āpull requestā 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 launcherā¦
I cannot see any public exeā¦
I cannot see any dynamic campaignsā¦
etc. -
Yes, before afraid of version spreading, Contributor may not come out in the first place. haha.
I was asked to open source my launcher from several guys at here, at email and at Reddit, I kept it in my local because 1. I could not understand how to use git well, 2. I afraid spreading version and that might ignore my design philosophy for the application. Finally, @erpe asked me to do so so that he can fix CTD issue when closing BMS. I was not having idea why it is happening and how can I fix it. I approved and he fixed the problem in a minute. He also kindly taught me how to use git. When I finally open sourced it, I realized I donāt have to worry about #2 problem. Finding new contributor should be more problem from now on. I think I ask @erpe or StackOverFlow for future development. This is another way to borrow someone talented corderās hand.
Instead of Open Source. If possible, I would like to have new SDK, API or opened Setting File to allow developing various plugin tools like FSX does. Change the sky/ocean color, Change cloud generation, Implement new AI logic, Override terrain texture drawing etc. I especially would like to Try new SmartScaling Factor.
-
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 āpull requestā 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 launcherā¦
Flight Gear is maybe a nice and happy simulator, but for anyone involved in Falcon more than a few years will know that wonāt workā¦
Its most beneficial to submit your changes upstream for implementation, rather than to fork your own version and not share those changes.
You know this sentence caught my eyes, Iāll explain why
After BMS was initially released at 2011, maybe I was pretty Naive back then, but I REALLY expected to see a boost of ART development from the community. Iām talking mainly about 3D models and skins/textures. I mean, BMS improved the code, improved the overall look of the sim with the DX9 implementation, so I expected the community to do its part on that area.
But letās see what happened since and which of the greatest hits of the community actually playing with Harmony with the BMS vision:
Janhas models ā> Janhas maybe makes nice models, but what about SANITY?? poly count and textures size? No one cares, in the name of pure art
Tomcatz models --> Poly counts, no lower LODs
Most 3D models done by the community (Released or WIP) --> Polycount/Textures/Whatever issues
Ostsee theater --> Looks good but broken in dozen ways
Yes there are a few great products out there, especially theaters:
Ikaros theater
PHO --> Maybe the most impressive theater ever created for FalconSo you see? The community supports and praise most stuff that is AGAINST BMS policy and vision, so how does that get close to Harmony? People arenāt willing to work hard to make things right, so how can someone expect open source? Open source is all about Harmony, but here in this community itās exactly the opposite. Instead of work hard, people are crying for how itās hard to do this, or manage that, with all the changes coming with every version, so letās just do whatever we want, zillion objects-count theater, 100K poly models, and models with no lower LODsā¦
And OTOH, the BMS team was not once called āElitisticā, āDistancedā and I even heard once someone wrote that āThatās why it will eventually failā. So this community has the nature of biting the hand that feeds it. So what is the sense to talk about Open source or Flight Gear. I understand that people may disagree on stuff, but here this is THE main point, to not agree on anything
-
Flight Gear is maybe a nice and happy simulator, but for anyone involved in Falcon more than a few years will know that wonāt workā¦
You know this sentence caught my eyes, Iāll explain why
After BMS was initially released at 2011, maybe I was pretty Naive back then, but I REALLY expected to see a boost of ART development from the community. Iām talking mainly about 3D models and skins/textures. I mean, BMS improved the code, improved the overall look of the sim with the DX9 implementation, so I expected the community to do its part on that area.
But letās see what happened since and which of the greatest hits of the community actually playing with Harmony with the BMS vision:
Janhas models --> Janhas maybe makes nice models, but what about SANITY?? poly count and textures size? No one cares, in the name of pure art
Tomcatz models --> Poly counts, no lower LODs
Most 3D models done by the community (Released or WIP) --> Polycount/Textures/Whatever issues
Ostsee theater --> Looks good but broken in dozen ways
Yes there are a few great products out there, especially theaters:
Ikaros theater
PHO --> Maybe the most impressive theater ever created for FalconSo you see? The community supports and praise most stuff that is AGAINST BMS policy and vision, so how does that get close to Harmony? People arenāt willing to work hard to make things right, so how can someone expect open source? Open source is all about Harmony, but here in this community itās exactly the opposite. Instead of work hard, people are crying for how itās hard to do this, or manage that, with all the changes coming with every version, so letās just do whatever we want, zillion objects-count theater, 100K poly models, and models with no lower LODsā¦
And OTOH, the BMS team was not once called āElitisticā, āDistancedā and I even heard once someone wrote that āThatās why it will eventually failā. So this community has the nature of biting the hand that feeds it. So what is the sense to talk about Open source or Flight Gear. I understand that people may disagree on stuff, but here this is THE main point, to not agree on anything
Just to ātemperā a little bit what you said (and which I agree with) ā¦ when some ppl are working nicely, are nice ppl, and share the same vision (or able to accept compromises in some ways for the sanity of the development/team), we do open the doors. The most recent a have in mind:
ā¦
l3cruzader
Radium
EGHI
Lazystone
Nove
ā¦ and more, and some other who are probably unknown here ā¦Nobody can say BMS is a closed team. There is turnover within its members, and many teammates comes from the public board and wasnāt known by present team-members before. But yes, we choose teammates that will recieve a maximum of dev support. That is how it works.
-
Instead of Open Source. If possible, I would like to have new SDK, API or opened Setting File to allow developing various plugin tools like FSX does. Change the sky/ocean color, Change cloud generation, Implement new AI logic, Override terrain texture drawing etc. I especially would like to Try new SmartScaling Factor.
Nice, but all that will require DEDICATION from BMS coder(s) and unfortunately I doubt we have that kind of capacity. Donāt forget source code area like this will require not only development time, but also continues maintnence as bugs will appear, testing efforts, documentation etc. With a Falcon-size project we are talking about a couple of years of developer time to externalize APIs. Is it really worth it? A lot of this things probably can be done, but you really think we should oncentrate on those instead of keep REALLY moving forward? Letting you manage sky/ocean color is probably doable and not that hard to implement, but AIs?? avionics? Even talking about terrain textures, what do you expect to do differently? because anything related to terrain will become painfully hard to change/manage.
Everything has a trade-off between development-time and neccesity, we want to believe that we choose the right areas to put our development time on.
-
ā¦ā¦ So this community has the nature of biting the hand that feeds itā¦
I am sorry that you feel that way I-Hawk. Everytime either a newbie or a troll start a thread like this, there are always a small number of people putting a little oil on the fire. However, this is in my view always a very small part of the community. So, please dev team; donāt translate the voices of a small number of people into an overarching āassessmentā of the community at large. There are a great many people that enjoy the awesome work you are doing with BMS.
-
Flight Gear is maybe a nice and happy simulator, but for anyone involved in Falcon more than a few years will know that wonāt workā¦
I guess the structure of Falcon is 100% different and is way more complex because it is a military sim with weapons, etc.
But letās see what happened since and which of the greatest hits of the community actually playing with Harmony with the BMS vision:
Janhas models ā> Janhas maybe makes nice models, but what about SANITY?? poly count and textures size? No one cares, in the name of pure art
I agree. This is why I made optional his trees in my '80s MOD. If you turned on the shadows, FPS dropped dramatically even I did not use LOD0 only the second best LOD. Same case his very nice F-16. If you turn on shadowsā¦
Tomcatz models ā> Poly counts, no lower LODs
And with such panel lines which are look totally unreal.
Ostsee theater ā> Looks good but broken in dozen ways
It has unplayable FPS even in an empty TE. The loading time from just in a TE or campaign is about 30 seconds on my HW which is not weak.
PHO ā> Maybe the most impressive theater ever created for Falcon
Does it have playable and enjoyable campaigns?
Instead of work hard, people are crying for how itās hard to do this, or manage that, with all the changes coming with every version, so letās just do whatever we want, zillion objects-count theater, 100K poly models, and models with no lower LODsā¦
This is why I always asked what about DB? It has not been upgraded almost in any way almost since SP3/SP4 concerning modeling values for seekers, battalion structure, etc. DB is filled with garbage which are unusable for any theaters or camapigns. Harpoints, loadouts, racks were not set even necessary racks for red jets are in the DB for at least 10+ years. Role scores are set in a way which makes the AI dumb, etc.
It could be imporved I tried to explain many times, I even made a doc. for battalions modeling for red side but so far nothing has changed not in FF line not in BMS.
Fingers crossed for 4.34. -
The poly count and texture size of the JANHAS model is not insane to the modern video game. Even for BMS this model is not insane in most cases, it can maintain 60 fps+. The problem occurs in the FPS loss on the ground, which is not a problem inherent in JANHAS but also in the default 3D model. The more poly count there is, the more mysterious FPS loss on the ground is noticeable. That is why JANHAS model is āinsaneā for BMS under certain conditions.
Thinking about lower spec PC more strict performance policy is understandable. If we could limit the max detail of LOD via UI, (ie: if graphics setting is āLOWā, only LOD 5 to 3 will be on screen) BMS can prepare the default model with higher poly counts.