EXPANSION OF DEVELOPMENT BASE PERSONNEL THROUGH EDUCATION
-
NOTE 1: If this topic already exists under a different description / title, I kindly ask the admins to remove and append accordingly.
NOTE 2: Try to restrain yourselves from sterile criticism as this topic isn’t intended to offend in any way anyone at all.After expressing a desire for a higher detail environment and subsequently getting shot down with remarks such as “all devs should get divorced, drop off the kids at the orphanage and deliver”, I am deciding to put this out as a separate topic.
If manpower is what the development lacks most of, then the expansion of the development of the non-critical and critical tasks alike should be the priority in my opinion.
The development team should take the time to make educational videos that teach users how to create and submit for example, terrain models, tiles, textures, 3D objects (trees, buildings, bridges etc) for incorporation into a new terrain model.
A list of required software tools to do the job.
How to name files.
A checklist of things to do per task.
A quality control self-check before submitting something towards BMS.The same I suppose could be done for coding as also other aspects of this simulator.
The development team could maintain a number of “projects” each one with its own specific guidelines, and people could volunteer or be asked to contribute on each one. The same development team would maintain control over the produced work, it would set the standards for each iteration and only trouble its-self with coordination and quality control. Since teaching presents its own challenges, it would also be valuable for several other reasons (manual development, literature etc).
If my ideas are wrong for whatever reason I am unaware of, just point out those reasons or direct me to the relative links.
Thanks for taking the time to read and hopefully contribute.
-
QC/STANEVAL aside, that stuff is already scattered around these fora and the net.
You are proposing a lot of work not directly related to the sim for a development team not overly interested in expanding their membership.
While I completely agree, all Im saying is, prepare to be shot down on this one.
-
All I have to say this is probably the best presented case for expansion of the team I’ve ever seen. Not demanding, just logical and a simple proposal. Just be prepared for a no, as that is probably the answer, they keep the development close to the vest for their own reasons which for better or worse has been a good way to develop the simulator to date, but I do feel this idea has some merit, especially since the team would ultimately be approving or rejecting a contributing developer’s work. It’s not quite the same as actually being on the team, so there is a stop gap if you will, so it could help save some time for our developers without having to “officially” expand the team.
Just my thoughts on your thread, good luck!
-
It would be nice if all the scattered info could be collected under one topic/sub-forum…but I’m also certain that there are reasons we aren’t aware of as to how the dev team is made up, and why/how it expands…
-
I know of at least one real world F-16 pilot that offered to help improve the avionics and bring them closer to what is actually in the jet and he was more or less ignored. To put it bluntly, they don’t want our help.
That doesn’t mean people can’t contribute in their own way. There are plenty of models in dire need of replacement, lots of textures could use an overhaul, etc.
-
NOTE 1: If this topic already exists under a different description / title, I kindly ask the admins to remove and append accordingly.
NOTE 2: Try to restrain yourselves from sterile criticism as this topic isn’t intended to offend in any way anyone at all.After expressing a desire for a higher detail environment and subsequently getting shot down with remarks such as “all devs should get divorced, drop off the kids at the orphanage and deliver”, I am deciding to put this out as a separate topic.
If manpower is what the development lacks most of, then the expansion of the development of the non-critical and critical alike tasks should be the priority in my opinion.
The development team should take the time to make educational videos that teach users how to create and submit for example, terrain models, tiles, textures, 3D objects (trees, buildings, bridges etc) for incorporation into a new terrain model.
A list of required software tools to do the job.
How to name files.
A checklist of things to do per task.
A quality control self-check before submitting something towards BMS.The same I suppose could be done for coding as also other aspects of this simulator.
The development team could maintain a number of “projects” each one with its own specific guidelines, and people could volunteer or be asked to contribute on each one. The same development team would maintain control over the produced work, it would set the standards for each iteration and only trouble its-self with coordination and quality control. Since teaching presents its own challenges, it would also be valuable for several other reasons (manual development, literature etc).
If my ideas are wrong for whatever reason I am unaware of, just point out those reasons or direct me to the relative links.
Thanks for taking the time to read and hopefully contribute.
Most of the information you describe to have a knowledge of how is done and what to do is out there, otherwise we would not be having about a dozen 3rd party theaters, some hundred 3rd party models, some dozen 3rd party great applications to benefit this sport in all aspect, some other brother sites and forums e.g. for creating a fully working simulator using the real hw bird parts…
And by the way, I (and we all) have seen and name ppl that from their 2nd post they already have earned the official devs attention and support, maybe on the train too before even their 3rd post.
-
Hmm not exactly the case I have 2 say Raptor.
The beast is way alive and kicking.
Info is so scattered and some of not many are totally forgotten and never used.
Theater development is way far from structured and documented. Besides this another major issue is knowledge of third party applications specifically on falcon development.
BMS core advances by leaps where community development tools and knowledge is left alone in the dark. There is a huge gap.2 all please don’t misunderstand, this is not complaining, just how things are.
I know devs are over their head and I respect that and I’m happy with what we have more than anything in the world.sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
-
QC/STANEVAL aside, that stuff is already scattered around these fora and the net.
You are proposing a lot of work not directly related to the sim for a development team not overly interested in expanding their membership.
While I completely agree, all Im saying is, prepare to be shot down on this one.
I am proposing a two-gear approach where the grunt work of making tiles, structures, buildings, elevation maps etc is a) outlined and defined by the core dev. team, b) executed by anyone including the core dev team (even though my proposal aims to lighten their workload) and c) keep the dev. team on a approve/disapprove/correct/QC role concerning developed work.
As Raptor points out, we already have several approaches to the same issue. And its fine to have different “flavors” for the same thing. But since there are already skilled people - and many others would be more than willing to help - an opportunity exists where THE BEST BAR NONE outcome could be laid down in terms of specifications from the core dev. team concerning graphics. Development resources could be created, pooled and maintained and keep more people on the same projects offering shorter turnaround. The core dev team loses nothing at all. They may keep secrets, specifications, dev. material and everything else very close to their heart and all - and in fact I agree with them doing so, because too many voices leads to chaos. They would also have the ability to reject material (even though that is somewhat cruel from the standpoint of someone performing a certain effort), but that would only encourage others “to make the cut” and make sure their buildings, structures, tiles etc are exactly what the core dev. team lays down in terms of specifications.
In short, I am suggesting the core dev. team to give up nothing. I am though asking them to allow people to help in an educated, controlled and supervised manner with guidelines and rules laid down by the core dev. team for the sake of uniformity, consistency and quality of outcome.
I really do think that the core dev. teams skills should be applied to things far more difficult than making tiles etc. But if that effort instead of being ignored more or less (honestly, I haven’t seen proportional improvement when compared with the FM or other features) it could be co-developed with the users under the supervision of the core dev. team. More time for them to tend to their families. More pleasure on behalf of the community for being able to contribute. And the final outcome could put DCS to shame including graphics (right now it only puts DCS to shame concerning everything else in my opinion).
For instance:
If a number of different building and structure variations are needed on each iteration in order for the sim to be less repetetive, those could be specified or sketched by the dev team, and handed over to them. They could then fliter through the submitted work, approve-reject-rework on models and use them to improve the terrain model if they feel that needs to be done by them.
The same applies for textures. If the dev. team wants a different look and feel for something depending on weather conditions, season etc, all it needs to do is outline the work and create specifications once. The work would be submitted to them and they would be spending time/effort in “sieving” through submissions rather than creating from scratch.
A text file with a description of the workflow followed in developing something, or rather a statement such as “developed according to tile guidelines V1.0b” would be the only thing a core team member needs before checking the submitted work.
If the pipelines for 3D objects, tiles, cloubs, textures etc are created once, then all the dev. team would need to do is maintain the guidelines of each pipeline. The work would be carried out while they sleep and they would only need to chip in if something got left behind. That is far different than executing the 100% of the work by themselves.
Falcon is the best PC flight sim bar none. I would only like to see it become even better now that the hardware limitations of “yesterday” have been removed. I thank everyone for chipping in with their opinion and also clarifying or pointing out things that I may have not considered.
-
Hmm not exactly the case I have 2 say Raptor.
The beast is way alive and kicking.
Info is so scattered and some of not many are totally forgotten and never used.
Theater development is way far from structured and documented. Besides this another major issue is knowledge of third party applications specifically on falcon development.
BMS core advances by leaps where community development tools and knowledge is left alone in the dark. There is a huge gap.2 all please don’t misunderstand, this is not complaining, just how things are.
I know devs are over their head and I respect that and I’m happy with what we have more than anything in the world.sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
Got to agree with you there, the tooling we have to mod the sim is complicated (though again it’s one of those things once you know what you’re doing, you’re solid) relatively speaking and often have many unexplained features or are not documented that well, so it would be nice if we could get some tutorials for stuff like Monster Terrian, the LOD editor, ect for others to try their hand. As it stands now, you have to really want to get into modding because the learning curve is about as steep as flying the sim in and of itself, lol.
p.s. did I also mention that sadly most of the developers who make 3rd party software for BMS almost always end up not supporting/developing it anymore and a few versions of BMS later, you get incompatibility. Vicious cycle indeed.
-
Before asking what others SHOULD do
Prove what you CAN do and HOW
…It’s always been the way the team was expanded, it’s been proven working by what the team has delivered.
and why would one change something that’s working?Red Dog
Reality if for ppl who can't handle simulation -
@Red:
Before asking what others SHOULD do
Prove what you CAN do and HOW
…It’s always been the way the team was expanded, it’s been proven working by what the team has delivered.
and why would one change something that’s working?I agree with you. I am not TELLING anyone to do anything. I am making a suggestion backed by points and arguments. If you want my effort here is what I can offer. I am good at working with CAD programs. Designing buildings was a small part of my workday. So if the dev. team would like to lay down specifications of what kind of work they would welcome to see incorporated in the next Falcon version, I would be quite happy to offer some of my free time towards that goal. I dont want to be paid or anything. I just dont want to do something for no reason at all. I mean, if I am to spend 5 hrs of cadwork just to have my model rejected by someone, I might as well not do anything at all. That is why I believe that the effort needs to start from the core dev. team. Specifications. Guidelines. Quality criteria. Formatting.
I believe they can only benefit from such an approach.
-
I know of at least one real world F-16 pilot that offered to help improve the avionics and bring them closer to what is actually in the jet and he was more or less ignored. To put it bluntly, they don’t want our help.
It is not because he is not yet integrated into the team with a full access of the dev forum that wasn’t provided usefull info to some of the team members … and … one do not need to be team member to be usefull to the community. Anytime he comes on the ppl forum he provides some good info that might be good for the development.
That doesn’t mean people can’t contribute in their own way. There are plenty of models in dire need of replacement, lots of textures could use an overhaul, etc.
100% …
I (we) am still waiting for someone to give love to the Tactical Reference.
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?19669-Tactical-Reference-problem&highlight=Tacref
ASUSTeK ROG MAXIMUS X HERO / Intel Core i5-8600K (4.6 GHz) / NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti FE 12GB / 32GB DDR4 Ballistix Elite 3200 MHz / Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 2TB / Be Quiet! Straight Power 11 1000W Platinum / Windows 10 Home 64-bit / HOTAS Cougar FSSB R1 (Warthog grip) / SIMPED / MFD Cougar / ViperGear ICP / SimShaker JetPad / Track IR 5 / Curved LED 27'' Monitor 1080p Samsung C27F396 / HP Reverb G2 VR Headset.
-
@Red:
Before asking what others SHOULD do
Prove what you CAN do and HOW
…It’s always been the way the team was expanded, it’s been proven working by what the team has delivered.
and why would one change something that’s working?It doesn’t seem to me like he’s telling anyone, just proposing the question…. If I could relate this to sales, let me tell you something, as a professional business coordinator who does B2B sales, one of the hardest things to do, if not impossible to do is impress somebody who isn’t all that intersted in you in the first place. How are you going to “wow” them when everything you bring to the table is met with skepticism and all the other things that a CEO or business owner will do during a presentation. There must be on some level an open mind (neutral or positive client) or the transaction will never occur.
It’s kind of the same, the burden to prove oneself is too great. It would make more sense with that approach, if there were regular interview periods or something to that effect so there is motivation to perform at the highest levels. I think just saying, “well prove something to us” is a little ambiguous and hard to quantify, whereas if the dev team said, “well look, we’ll give you a shot to build xxx and based on your performance of xxx we will then go from there.”
That would give those who actually do have the ability and talent to produce, something to grab on to and actually impress the team. It will be far more impressive to the team if they say “make this” and that person excels than randomly making a feature that the dev team may or may not have an interest in. That risk to reward ratio is too great and unconscionable, meaning no reasonable person would enter into that undertaking because it would be foolish to do so.
Just some constructive feedback to your position, Red Dog.
-
Why do you all bother trying to get in “dev team”? It is their “ball”, their “courtyard”, the point was made clear in the past they are no interested.
Have fun with what you have in your HD and let them play the way they want.
-
Naysayer
-
Why do you all bother trying to get in “dev team”? It is their “ball”, their “courtyard”, the point was made clear in the past they are no interested.
Have fun with what you have in your HD and let them play the way they want.I am not asking to be on any team dev. or otherwise. I am asking for a better terrain to fly over. Period. If that requires work on my behalf, so be it. But that would be anarchy if everyone of us just chose to start making buildings, tiles, structures etc. Look at all the side projects.
In my opinion HIGH QUALITY work is needed. And to get high quality work done, you need to think and answer the following two questions: a) what do you want to get out of your pipeline in the future? b) How do you get that out of it? You could probably also answer while at it “what is the most efficient way of getting that out of my pipeline?” or “do I anticipate future changes?” or “what are my inherent limitations I will always be carrying along with me?”.
Those are questions that can’t be answered by me. But that doesn’t mean I am dictating what people should do.
There is also the matter of continuity. Having a version 1.0 is good, but having a single version out every year is even better. Right now effort is scattered in various directions. I feel - and this is only my opinion - that if those efforts were centralised we would be enjoying a far better sim experience. All of us.
-
I (we) am still waiting for someone to give love to the Tactical Reference.
BAH…lol
Exactly what needs to be done?? Just updated info and/or missing info???
C9
-
You got too late for the match, the kids have already a ball and got the team set. Sorry. But we can surely enjoy watching they playing….;)
Edit: was a reply for the atreides, not you cloud.
-
@Cloud:
BAH…lol
Exactly what needs to be done?? Just updated info and/or missing info???
C9
BOOM! See that’s what I’m talking about. A “mission” if you will describing perfectly what would improve the simulator for the dev team and save their time!
Now they have time to work on Link-16! juuuuuuuust kiddin’ don’t beat me up guys
-
Monster Terrian, the LOD editor
LOD Editor comes with a user manual. And Jan Has has put out and made public a LOT of info on how to use LE also, here and on his website.
Monsters TE, is an intuitive application. It’s not hard at all, you just have to play around with it and learn how it works. If you have questions, then ask them here on the Forums and you’ll most likely get the answer you need.
The problem I see is everyone want’s to be spoon feed everything…AND I mean everything. Most of us old Devs have learned ourselves with very little “being taught” or “having instructions” from anyone. We studied the tools and figured out how to use them basically on our own.
No one want’s to do this anymore. But then again that’s just a sign of the times we live in now a days, as everyone seems to feel they are entitled to be given everything they want/request!!!
C9
