I fly with flight simulators for year. As far as I remember, I have always had a FS on my computers, from my first AMSTRAD CPC64 to my actual PC.I must say that I'd like MS flight simulator for the thousand of freeware planes available, hundreds of freeware scenery available but that I hated the elevation and terrain representation.I have tested X-plane too and if I had not changed windoz for Linux I would probably have bought it.My opinion on FG is good at all point and especialy on elevation and terrain representation. I've never seen a scenery as acurate as the one of FG for the Reunion Island where I live. It's really the best scene I have ever seen for this island even in freeware add on.BUT I THINK FLIGHTGEAR WILL DIE if no tools for plane modeling, scenery building and object constructing are released for the community.The strenght of MSFS and x-plane is the possibility for anyone in the community to build his own plane, scenery and object and to distribute them via internet.If x-plane is released for Linux in the next months, it will be a strong opponent for FG for not much than 50 $, but a far most dedicated library of planes, scenery and object.I think that before further developpement of FG, the team MUST release developpement tools for creating add on scenery and new planes or objects. This tools are available freeware for the two other flight simulators and if you search on the internet, there is dozen of website proposing to download planes or add on scenery. That's why they encounter such a success.To be honest, I will probably buy x-plane when it will be avaiable for Linux, not because it's a better FS than FG but because it is more customizable than FG.I like FG and Iike to create my own scenery, especially for my small island in the middle of the Indian Ocean and I did for MSFS very easilly. But I didn't find any howto on the internet, nor tools to do so with FG.I'm not a programer but I think that these tools are not so difficult to develop. I think I'm not the only one who want these tools available. And I'm sure that they will considerably help the developpement of FG and it's use by a growing number of people around this world.I hope that someone will read this message and that FG will long live, with a large community of developper not only hard coding, but also bringing their small bricks in the environnement where we fly and the plane witch we fly with.sorry for my bad englishDavid_run

I can't agree more. Why has nobody created any Plane/Scenery/Object creation tools for FG? And I mean ready to run tools. Not something we have to compile ourselves. That's what I like about X-plane. All these tools (except for maybe the object creater) are bundled together with X-plane, ready to go (or as ready to go as X-plane can be).If these tools are created and made available, FG will not have to worry about scenery or aircraft because hundreds if not thousands of people will create them for FG. What are you waiting for? Just my $0.02Stephen W. (aka hiroinjpn01)>I fly with flight simulators for year. As far as I remember,>I have always had a FS on my computers, from my first AMSTRAD>CPC64 to my actual PC.>>I must say that I'd like MS flight simulator for the thousand>of freeware planes available, hundreds of freeware scenery>available but that I hated the elevation and terrain>representation.>>I have tested X-plane too and if I had not changed windoz for>Linux I would probably have bought it.>>My opinion on FG is good at all point and especialy on>elevation and terrain representation. I've never seen a>scenery as acurate as the one of FG for the Reunion Island>where I live. It's really the best scene I have ever seen for>this island even in freeware add on.>>BUT I THINK FLIGHTGEAR WILL DIE if no tools for plane>modeling, scenery building and object constructing are>released for the community.>>The strenght of MSFS and x-plane is the possibility for anyone>in the community to build his own plane, scenery and object>and to distribute them via internet.>>If x-plane is released for Linux in the next months, it will>be a strong opponent for FG for not much than 50 $, but a far>most dedicated library of planes, scenery and object.>>I think that before further developpement of FG, the team MUST>release developpement tools for creating add on scenery and>new planes or objects. This tools are available freeware for>the two other flight simulators and if you search on the>internet, there is dozen of website proposing to download>planes or add on scenery. That's why they encounter such a>success.>>To be honest, I will probably buy x-plane when it will be>avaiable for Linux, not because it's a better FS than FG but>because it is more customizable than FG.>>I like FG and Iike to create my own scenery, especially for my>small island in the middle of the Indian Ocean and I did for>MSFS very easilly. But I didn't find any howto on the>internet, nor tools to do so with FG.>>I'm not a programer but I think that these tools are not so>difficult to develop. I think I'm not the only one who want>these tools available. >>And I'm sure that they will considerably help the>developpement of FG and it's use by a growing number of people>around this world.>>I hope that someone will read this message and that FG will>long live, with a large community of developper not only hard>coding, but also bringing their small bricks in the>environnement where we fly and the plane witch we fly with.>>sorry for my bad english>>David_run>

Hello,It's exactly the purpose of this post !! I'd like to see this tools d

>BUT I THINK FLIGHTGEAR WILL DIE if no tools for plane>modeling, scenery building and object constructing are>released for the community.Flightgear will not die anytime soon. The project has existed for many years, and from what I can tell, we have more people now than ever before working on and around flightgear.As for Plane Modelling, there are of course two aspects: flight dynamics model and 3D model.The 3D models can be created in a variety of software packages, but blender (http://blender3d.org) seems to be the most popular.While several formats for 3D models are recognized, most used the AC3D format. There is a blender plugin for that.For the flight dynamics, you can choose between 3 different flight dynamics engines (FDM). But it usually boils down to either yasim or JSBSim.Yasim can get you up and running quickly as it needs only a few numbers like lenght, wingspan, a few speeds, and a couple more things.These are numbers that can be found easily for most airplanes.Yasim then generates the coefficients from the information given. It does a decent job, but there are certain things that are hard to tweak.JSBSim, on the other side, requires you to know/guess the coefficients for lift, drag,...If you have lots of good data (eg. windtunnel data) then JSBSim allows you to tune the models well.As far as I understand it, JSBSim is more similar to the MSFS aproach, while Yasim is more like what X-plane uses.Aeromatic is an webbased FDM config file generator for JSBSim that lets you get a rough draft for your aircraft quickly: http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net/aeromatic.html>The strenght of MSFS and x-plane is the possibility for anyone>in the community to build his own plane, scenery and object>and to distribute them via internet.>If x-plane is released for Linux in the next months, it will>be a strong opponent for FG for not much than 50 $, but a far>most dedicated library of planes, scenery and object.If.... I've heard about the impending release for X-Plane for Linux for years... nothing yet so far. I'll believe it when I see it :-)>I think that before further developpement of FG, the team MUST>release developpement tools for creating add on scenery and>new planes or objects. This tools are available freeware for>the two other flight simulators and if you search on the>internet, there is dozen of website proposing to download>planes or add on scenery. That's why they encounter such a>success.Well, there are tools for that for FG. Its a bit like the "chicken and egg" problem: Lots of people wait for FG to have more planes/better scenery/more whatever, but these don't get created if people just stay outside and watch.To attract more people, you need more "attractive stuff", but to create more "attractive stuff", you need people that make it.This is one of the reason that FG attracts more "technically oriented" people at this time. Most of them don't mind compiling their own stuff.>To be honest, I will probably buy x-plane when it will be>avaiable for Linux, not because it's a better FS than FG but>because it is more customizable than FG.No. Are you trying to threaten to buy X-Plane just to get your wishes implemented in FG ????It sounds like it.If you have set your mind on buying X-Plane, why did you post here?>I like FG and Iike to create my own scenery, especially for my>small island in the middle of the Indian Ocean and I did for>MSFS very easilly. But I didn't find any howto on the>internet, nor tools to do so with FG.Not many developers check this forum, so it might be a better idea to subscribe to the mailinglists. You might more likly get a response there.>I'm not a programer but I think that these tools are not so>difficult to develop. I think I'm not the only one who want>these tools available. Well, you cannot force anyone to develop a program in his spare time, and for no money. If there's someone who sees the need and has the ability, time and interest, that person will do it.Thats how things work with free software.But, as I said, several tools do exist.>And I'm sure that they will considerably help the>developpement of FG and it's use by a growing number of people>around this world.>>I hope that someone will read this message and that FG will>long live, with a large community of developper not only hard>coding, but also bringing their small bricks in the>environnement where we fly and the plane witch we fly with.I'm not a FG developer... so my opinions not necessarily reflect those of other FG developers. I'm just lobbying for FG where I can :)And I saw the need for a interface to hook up homecockpit stuff to flightgear. Thats what I'm working on, thats where I saw the need and felt its time to do it. :) (see http://cockpit.varxec.net)Manuel

Flightgear will not die anytime soon. The project has existed>for many years, and from what I can tell, we have more people>now than ever before working on and around flightgear.And I hope it will !!!! I've made myself this reflexion a few days before and it' s not only about FG. Most of the product I find over the internet for LInux are often of very good quality, and it's so for FG. But they are not enough oriented to the users. >As for Plane Modelling, there are of course two aspects:>flight dynamics model and 3D model.>Its a bit like the "chicken and egg" problem: Lots of people>wait for FG to have more planes/better scenery/more whatever,>but these don't get created if people just stay outside and>watch.>To attract more people, you need more "attractive stuff", but>to create more "attractive stuff", you need people that make>it.That's it and it's user oriented. I'd like to make my own scenery and share them with the community, but how can I do without appropriate tools ? I do not defend MSFS but these tools exist for FS and they are feeware, developped by anonymous people !!I told it before, meanwhile, I found some tools for scenery design, but they are very unfriendly to use. And I miss an important object library !!>This is one of the reason that FG attracts more "technically>oriented" people at this time. Most of them don't mind>compiling their own stuff.True and I'm happy that such people exist. But the real question is : should Linux stay a technically orirented OS or should it open itself to a much larger audience ?>>To be honest, I will probably buy x-plane when it will be>>avaiable for Linux, not because it's a better FS than FG but>>because it is more customizable than FG.>>No. Are you trying to threaten to buy X-Plane just to get your>wishes implemented in FG ????>It sounds like it.>If you have set your mind on buying X-Plane, why did you post>here?I would prefer to continue with FG honnestly. but I'm a Flight simulator addict (I've not enough money to fly for real) and I'm a bit frustated to be passif in the developpement of FG. I still expect to find a version of the 9.5 that fit to my cpu (mdk10.0 and can't install the packages or the sources), I miss more detailed scenery, I miss more detailed planes, I miss more effectives panels (I've seen the A320's panel under windows, its apocaliptic : 2 instrument and that's all ?) etc.I think that there is a lot of people who wish and have the ability to help creating that. They just need the tools. It's a call : give us the tools to create planes, scenery, panels, objects and so !!!!!!!!!I've not set my mind in buying x-plane, but on a open market I'll choose between the two products when they will be available. And my choice will be be guided by a lot of element.>>Well, you cannot force anyone to develop a program in his>spare time, and for no money. If there's someone who sees the>need and has the ability, time and interest, that person will>do it.>Thats how things work with free software.>But, as I said, several tools do exist.Of course I can't, but waybe they will hear me and the other and be interrested to ?>>And I'm sure that they will considerably help the>>developpement of FG and it's use by a growing number of>people>>around this world.>>>>I hope that someone will read this message and that FG will>>long live, with a large community of developper not only>hard>>coding, but also bringing their small bricks in the>>environnement where we fly and the plane witch we fly with.>>I'm not a FG developer... so my opinions not necessarily>reflect those of other FG developers. I'm just lobbying for FG>where I can :)>And I saw the need for a interface to hook up homecockpit>stuff to flightgear. Thats what I'm working on, thats where I>saw the need and felt its time to do it. :) (see>http://cockpit.varxec.net)>>ManuelI've taken a lok at your job. very interresting, carry on.D.

>>>As for Plane Modelling, there are of course two aspects:>>flight dynamics model and 3D model.>>>Its a bit like the "chicken and egg" problem: Lots of people>>wait for FG to have more planes/better scenery/more>whatever,>>but these don't get created if people just stay outside and>>watch.>>To attract more people, you need more "attractive stuff",>but>>to create more "attractive stuff", you need people that make>>it.>>That's it and it's user oriented. I'd like to make my own>scenery and share them with the community, but how can I do>without appropriate tools ? I do not defend MSFS but these>tools exist for FS and they are feeware, developped by>anonymous people !!All you need at the moment is allready there.If you want to create some 3d buildings and texture themthen just use Blender or ac3D.Blender is a 3d modeler and free software and can be downloaded here:www.blender.orgIf you want to create some new textures for your buildings use GIMP, PaintShopPro or something else.Every image manipulation programm will do it.If you made some 3d buildings with blender save them in *.ac file format and send them to the flightgear developers.They will do the rest for you and put those buildings into the flightgear scenery.If these buildings are real world buildings (-> exist in the real world) then don't forget to sent the developers the position of the buildings so that they know where they can place the object into the scenery.This data is important:- longitude- latitude- altitudeand - the heading of the buildingIf you want to create an aircraft, just create a 3d model of the aircraft with blender, saveit in *.ac file format and send the file to the developers.Someone else will do the rest then, like creating the xml filesfor the Flight dynamic Model (FDM). >>I told it before, meanwhile, I found some tools for scenery>design, but they are very unfriendly to use. And I miss an>important object library !!The flightgear scenery designer is still in developmentand not finished.In the meantime just create your buildings with blender andsend the result to the flightgear developers.In other words, if you want to create a scenery for Chicago,London or something else, just create those buildings of these citys with blender and send the *.ac files to the flightgear developers, then they can put the 3d objects into the flightgear scenery for you. >>I would prefer to continue with FG honnestly. but I'm a Flight>simulator addict (I've not enough money to fly for real) and>I'm a bit frustated to be passif in the developpement of FG. I>still expect to find a version of the 9.5 that fit to my cpu>(mdk10.0 and can't install the packages or the sources), I>miss more detailed scenery, I miss more detailed planes, I>miss more effectives panels (I've seen the A320's panel under>windows, its apocaliptic : 2 instrument and that's all ?)>etc.3d instrument panels can be created in Blender too.The technical stuff like the xml files to control the 3d instrumentscan be done by someone else, you don't need to do all yourselfbut you can help a lot by just doing the art stuff like creating the3d object files with blender of those 3d instruments.At the moment flightgear needs more artistsfor doing things like 3d buildings, better textures etc.and when you are good in this then just jump on the bandwagon.>>I think that there is a lot of people who wish and have the>ability to help creating that. They just need the tools. It's>a call : give us the tools to create planes, scenery, panels,>objects and so !!!!!!!!!Every 3d modeler software that can save files in ac3d file format (*.ac) will do fine for creating 3d objects like buildings, 3d panels and planes for flightgear.

>The flightgear scenery designer is still in development>and not finished.>In the meantime just create your buildings with blender and>send the result to the flightgear developers.>At the moment flightgear needs more artists>for doing things like 3d buildings, better textures etc.>and when you are good in this then just jump on the>bandwagon.Personally, I think FG needs the scenery and aircraft design tools more than artists. When these tools are developed, artists (and a bunch of other people like myself) will come in droves. Being able to see what your creation actually looks like in the sim right after you created it is a big help in the creation process. Having to "send" it to someone else takes more time than I think some people want to deal with. And if you send the wrong location/direction data, it takes a long to fix.Also, I think AC3D is a lot better than Blender. You can't Blender's great price of FREE, but for easy of use, AC3D wins hands down. And the $50 pricetag is not that bad for a program of that type.So what is the development timeline for the scenery designer? What about an aircraft designer?

It's quite easy to build your objects into Flightgear.When you have finished your ac.model (and removed all the lines with "creases" if you did use ac3d version 4) then you can implement it using the stg files in the scenery dir. Just open one of the stg files to get an pmpression:OBJECT_BASE 3121811.btgOBJECT EDLF.btgOBJECT_SHARED Models/Airport/beacon.xml 10.820135 48.251700 529.6 0.00OBJECT_SHARED Models/Airport/windsock_lit.xml 10.810950 48.240664 533.6 0.00OBJECT_SHARED Models/Airport/windsock_lit.xml 10.831053 48.262097 525.0 0.00OBJECT Augsburg.btgWith Flightgear Scenery Designer (FGSD) you can find the right stg file for your Region. You can also place your objects with it. But you can as well do it by hand.If you want to place objects near a known airport then go into the matching lat/lon-dir. There you will see the btg files for the airports. Now search through the stg files and find that one with the Airport.btg file mentioned. In the example above you can see some objects (windsocks etc.) wich are loaded by the xml file but you don't need to create an xml file. Just type your ac.file in. After the name come: lon lat altitude and heading in degrees. bye Kai

>I fly with flight simulators for year. As far as I remember,>I have always had a FS on my computers, from my first AMSTRAD>CPC64 to my actual PC.>>I must say that I'd like MS flight simulator for the thousand>of freeware planes available, hundreds of freeware scenery>available but that I hated the elevation and terrain>representation.>>I have tested X-plane too and if I had not changed windoz for>Linux I would probably have bought it.>>My opinion on FG is good at all point and especialy on>elevation and terrain representation. I've never seen a>scenery as acurate as the one of FG for the Reunion Island>where I live. It's really the best scene I have ever seen for>this island even in freeware add on.>>BUT I THINK FLIGHTGEAR WILL DIE if no tools for plane>modeling, scenery building and object constructing are>released for the community.>>The strenght of MSFS and x-plane is the possibility for anyone>in the community to build his own plane, scenery and object>and to distribute them via internet.>>If x-plane is released for Linux in the next months, it will>be a strong opponent for FG for not much than 50 $, but a far>most dedicated library of planes, scenery and object.>>I think that before further developpement of FG, the team MUST>release developpement tools for creating add on scenery and>new planes or objects. This tools are available freeware for>the two other flight simulators and if you search on the>internet, there is dozen of website proposing to download>planes or add on scenery. That's why they encounter such a>success.>>To be honest, I will probably buy x-plane when it will be>avaiable for Linux, not because it's a better FS than FG but>because it is more customizable than FG.>>I like FG and Iike to create my own scenery, especially for my>small island in the middle of the Indian Ocean and I did for>MSFS very easilly. But I didn't find any howto on the>internet, nor tools to do so with FG.>>I'm not a programer but I think that these tools are not so>difficult to develop. I think I'm not the only one who want>these tools available. >>And I'm sure that they will considerably help the>developpement of FG and it's use by a growing number of people>around this world.>>I hope that someone will read this message and that FG will>long live, with a large community of developper not only hard>coding, but also bringing their small bricks in the>environnement where we fly and the plane witch we fly with.>>sorry for my bad english>>David_run>I agree too. Im sure flight gear if it was more open community friendly could be alot better. I mean I really want to help. If possible. Yet there is no open window for us to distribute this stuff for other flight gear users via the site. I noticed more than anything that Flight Gear doesnt have many sites offering freeware or even payware aircrafts. Thats really sad because alot of people use it. If the developers of Flight gear see this I ask that they consider doing something about it.

>I agree too. Im sure flight gear if it was more open community>friendly could be alot better. I mean I really want to help.>If possible. Yet there is no open window for us to distribute>this stuff for other flight gear users via the site.Did you actually read the Documentation files (they are called README.* !) in your Flightgear directory?Or the Documentation on the FlightGear website and Wiki page?http://wiki.flightgear.org/flightgear_wiki...title=Main_Page> I noticed>more than anything that Flight Gear doesnt have many sites>offering freeware or even payware aircrafts.Why should there be Freeware or Payware aircrafts?FlightGear is Open Source/Free Software and using the GPL as license.Please read these two arcticles for an introduction:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Softwarehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_LicenseNo one is interested in closed source addons or Payware.That's not the way, FlightGear development works.Payware is a relict of the days where closed source proprietary software was common.>Thats really sad>because alot of people use it. If the developers of Flight>gear see this I ask that they consider doing something about>it.The FlightGear project depends on volunteers.And there is really no need for Freeware or Paywarefrom the project point of view, they just don't make sense.Read the two arcticles mentioned above for clarification to understand why.

I couldnt agree more. I have spent the last 3 nights attempting to get FGSD and PPE to work. There are just so many things to go wrong, the programs crashing etc. I finally just deleted everything and gave up. First I attempted to compile FGSD on my windows box. but I couldn't figure that out. I installed cygwin but the "Make" utility was missing. So I found somebody that had the precompiled exe for Windows. I attempted to do something useful with that, but the program would crash if I tried to open more than one tile at a time. So I gave up on that.Then I attempted to use PPE. Again, i would attempt to open a file and would get a runtime error. After 4 to 5 hours of digging around the internet and messing with these programs, I just gave up.I'd love to do some detail work with the airports I'm familiar with and have flow out of, but with the state of things as they are, its simply too difficult.Brian

Holy thread resurrection!This topic is two years old!

>Holy thread resurrection!>This topic is two years old!Yes, it's an old topic-however, normally we ought to compliment the poster for obviously doing an actual forum search prior to starting a new discussion.And thread resurrection or not - frankly spoken, the topic and underlying issue itself remain entirely valid even after these two years have passed, which is actually also illustrated by the "technical report" that apparently you and your colleagues have composed? ( http://wiki.flightgear.org/flightgear_wiki...rchitecture.pdf )That is, while I personally disagree with several of the conclusions and recommendations made in that report and do see some things very differently, the overall issue remains the same: architectural limitations in the current core design which severly limit FlightGear's very recent, current and -if not soon addressed- also future evolvement.In fact, some people would probably already dare to say that FlightGear's recent development has already started to more and more often stagnate due to these very design issues, as it is reflected by developers having to work around existing shortcomings in order to accommodate new features, rather than addressing the actual problem itself-often resulting even from an objective point of view in "patchwork development", that even further complicates addition of new feature later on.Thus, regardless of whether we are talking of enabling non-developers to easily contribute aircraft and scenery or if we are talking about preparing FlightGear for its future, which may also entail multithreading, basically it mostly boils down to architectural issues that at the moment, simply nobody dares to tackle due to the complexity of doing so. Instead, new code is stuffed around the existing problem areas, essentially complicating possible attempts to isolate the problem even further.So this turns out to be sort of a vicious circle as the legacy code, while trying to face the challenges of integrating new functionality, continues to more and more result in a basically self-limiting evolution of FlightGear as a whole.While this may rightly be perceived as an exaggeration, it really isn't all that far feteched if you remember that FlightGear once wasn't that much "behind" its commercial counterparts (mainly MSFS and X-Plane back then), and that some components in FlightGear were even more advanced than, or even significantly superior to, its commercial pendants back then (i.e. think property tree, networking capabilities, scenery quality, 3D cockpits etc).Consequently, you'll notice that the majority of truly reasonable feature requests and proposals that can be found on the wiki, could be much more easily (or even be automatically) implemented if the core architecture was modified accordingly. Thus, I really don't think that bringing up even an 2 yr old debate should hurt when the issue still persists. In particular, because addressing such issues is usually going to be harder the longer they're being ignored. And the more FlightGear is starting to attract non-professional users, the more non-developers will want to get involved in the FlightGear project.So, users sort of "whining" for example about the lack of customizability in FlightGear, should also be seen as potential contributors, after all they would certainly not take the time to come here, post their experiences and opinions (and risk being flamed for it!) if they didn't care at all, as annoying as it may be from the point of view of a regular FlightGear user or even developer, this also illustrates HOW MUCH people would like to use FlightGear.

Actually, I am in agreement with your points. However, whether I agree with them is entirely irrelevant, because frankly, I can't do a thing about them. The developers on the mailing list has to "see the light", so to speak. But I would expect witty comebacks rather than "oh, you know, we should really start addressing this problem" from them.I will get flamed for this, but in my opinion, the real underlying issue comes from the mentality of SOME of our developers. Somehow, they placed the task of development onto the users. Their motto is "if the 'whiners' aren't doing anything about it, why should the developers?" Well, if the developers don't care enough, why should the users care?Then again, may be the problems has to do with the management... or lack thereof.

>Actually, I am in agreement with your points. However,>whether I agree with them is entirely irrelevant, because>frankly, I can't do a thing about them. The developers on the>mailing list has to "see the light", so to speak.[...]>I will get flamed for this, but in my opinion, the real>underlying issue comes from the mentality of SOME of our>developers. Somehow, they placed the task of development onto>the users. Their motto is "if the 'whiners' aren't doing>anything about it, why should the developers?" Well, if the>developers don't care enough, why should the users care?>>Then again, may be the problems has to do with the>management... or lack thereof.I'll do you the honour of flaming because as a long-time reader of the devel-list you _could_ have understood the issues you are talking about - but apparently you've rejected to do so.Actually "the developers", as you name them, _do_ see the light and they do care about the open issues with FlightGear, but they simply don't have the manpower to maintain the speed of development as you expect them to do so.And, honestly, you should be aware of this as well, by simply sitting there, blaming the developers and spreading false allegations, you don't ease the task to make FlightGear development more attractive. If you'd be really interested to see faster progress in FlightGear development, then please don't post such nonsense.Martin.