Why don't scenery developers share their work?

[MarkkuS]

Hi!
In the programing community you find lot of free and shared code. Not only binaries, but also the source code. But in the (flight) scenery community almost none share their source files with others. Even if the scenery is freeware. And I myself is doing the same!

The first exception to this I have found is the Whisplacer tool (http://lc0277.nerim.net/wiki/index.php?whisplacer)

Salute!

 

[lmoelleb]

I have the impression that a lot of the tool programmers are hobby programmers. Hobby programmers do tend to suffer from the "not invented here" syndrome. It's also harder for hobby programmers to work on shared code - they are simply not aware of the standard development patterns used to structure programs.

The main reason I have not officially made my tool open source are:
1) Time. I need to get the code hosted and some documentation needs to be made on how it works. Fine if I know others will join the project, not worth it if I don't know if they will.
2) Legal issues. As long as it is an internal project I can do what I want within the limits of Dutch copyright rules. I would have to investigate what I was allowed to do if I distributed the software wider.

Besides these points there is the technology barrier - for example my tool can do most of what Wishplacer can do and a lot more (except it really is designed to work with custom objects, not stock libraries) - but my tool is in C#, Wishplacer is in Java - and while Java is not too bad a language it's not something I would be willing to move to.

It was attempted to start a shared project some time ago, but it never really took of - my main reason was timing, I had other projects I needed to work on at that time.

If someone should be seriously shared project, or just want to look at my code let me know - I already have a client/server app allowing object placement on Google Earth/Virtual Earth maps, konversion of objects (like Arno's API to X conversion tool he is working on), various transformations on the objects (automatic LoD etc - I think Arno talked about adding this as well to his tool). While I do in no way claim my program is perfect (not even near) it does provide the basic framework and it could save a lot of time for others.

 

[scruffyduck]

Well I think it is inaccurate to say that no source code is shared. There is certainly source code for TTools and BglXml. Also I believe that TCalc has source. I think there are others. I myself have shared binaries, libraries and so on. I have aslo been fortunate to have help with code from a number of the people here so I think your statement is a bit harsh on the community.

Or, since you are asking about scenery do you mean the xml or other files that are the source for it?

 

[jdhaenens]

I don't understand either. Many of us share our models in .mdl format, a few share the more generic stuff in .gmax or .fsc format (source for us). See the Free Flight Design Studio for source code airframes, 3D gauges, etc. Many of us who do recognizable airports are not going to share our hangers and terminals unbidden, out of a sense of ownership for that particular airport. Although I've said yes more often than not when someone wants to use some of my stuff elsewhere. Most of the custom buildings at a certain location just don't belong elsewhere.

I guess I'm confused as to what your beef is.

JimD

 

[scruffyduck]

Jim

I agree - mostly if you need something and ask someone they will help either with source or binary or whatever. I cannot recall someone refusing permission when I ask for help, nor have I ever refused help when asked.

Also you only have tolook at the Wiki to see that guys are offering information about things like formats and so on

 

[Difar]

Mark

I am going to assume you are talking about the program code and not the "Output" product. As Jim and Jon have stated, many individuals do share their scenery/aircraft/gauge etc. models. Especially the common items.

Now those that have taken many, many hours in producing/designing their craft have a sense of pride in their work and hate to see others take advantage of their generosity. Personnaly, and I believe this to be true for a lot of the old timers, but starting way back in the begining (early 90's, AOL/Compuserve days) there were a lot of individuals that would steal others hard work and reproduce the models as their own (and still do to this day). I had many scenery's stolen and have reservation on u/l files that I spent hours upon hours working on.

You know, that is part of the problem with this hobby, some people just want to copy others hard work and re-release them as their own. Software designers such as Jon, Arno, Russel and others take time and pride and to an extent their livelyhood to give us users tools to expand our own world. And I for one am grateful.

But lurking around in the shadows is someone just wanting to pounce on the opportunity to make it their own (and God forbid, a buck).

Does this answer your initial question? I hope so, because in all of the negitive I just rambled on about, there are also quite a few people out there willing to give their time to answer those that need a little light on the subject so that we do keep this hobby alive for generations. And again, I am very grateful for them.

 

[MarkkuS]

Hi!

I don't understand either. Many of us share our models in .mdl format, a few share the more generic stuff in .gmax or .fsc format (source for us).
JimD

Sharing a mdl-file is NOT what I me mean with shared code! It like sharing a dll-file. For me sharing means, sharing the gmax/fsc-files, sharing the image-files etc. Nothing less.

Many of us who do recognizable airports are not going to share our hangers and terminals unbidden, out of a sense of ownership for that particular airport".
JimD

Exactly! Most of the scenery-designer are protecting their work (ownership) and that's the problem.

There are thousands and thousands of hobby programmers which share all their work with others. Often the source code is released with the GNU General Public License.

If you don't create scenery for money, I don't see the point in protecting the source files.

 

[scruffyduck]

Why is having the source code so important?

 

[MarkkuS]

Hi!

Now those that have taken many, many hours in producing/designing their craft have a sense of pride in their work and hate to see others take advantage of their generosity.

I had many scenery's stolen and have reservation on u/l files that I spent hours upon hours working on.

You know, that is part of the problem with this hobby, some people just want to copy others hard work and re-release them as their own.

Yes I know people steal others work.

But I still don't see what's the difference between a hobby scenery project and a hobby programing project.

Can somebody tell me, please?

 

[MarkkuS]

Hi!

Why is having the source code so important?

Because I think it's one of the best sources if you want to learn something new.

I have worked as professional programmer for more than 20 years, and have learned most by reading good text books with good code examples.

 

[scruffyduck]

Hi!


Because I think it's one of the best sources if you want to learn something new.

I have worked as professional programmer for more than 20 years, and have learned most by reading good text books with good code examples.

Well I agree with that but I don't think that is the same thing at all as having access to the source code of some utilities, some 3D object or some airport design.

For starters books use example code to underpin the text and vice versa which is very different than having 20,000 lines of code.

Are you actually saying that our hobby lacks the kind of How To books that are available to programmers doing other things?

 

[MarkkuS]

Are you actually saying that our hobby lacks the kind of How To books that are available to programmers doing other things?

Yes that's one of the problems. Luckily we have FSDeveloper.com which is a goldmine of scenery development information. But it's not enough.

I think the fundamental problem is that FS scenery/aircraft designer in general don't want to give away all information of their projects to others. Yes many of them are very very helpful, like many on FSDeveloper.com. The fundamental information of their projects stays with them, and when/if they quit FS designing, the information is gone. Very sad it is

 

[n4gix]

Actually, MarkkuS is referring to scenery object sources: i.e., the original 3d modeling program source files, such as xxx.max, xxx.gmax, or xxx.fsc files.

To be perfectly frank though, even having the source file hasn't much value as an "instructive tool," simply because all one can see is the end result of the modeling process.

One cannot learn any "techniques" for the most part from the end result. One would have no way of know which of a thousand paths may have been followed to get from a blank canvas to the finished product.

For example, off-hand I can think of at least fifty ways to create a box shape, ranging from one step to a truly rediculous thirty step process. Regardless of technique though, the end result is identical: a 3d box shape...

 

[bob5568]

Good point Bill...

MarkkuS, I've read an amazing number of tutorials, that include either files or images of the screens sufficient for you to learn gmax.

In that fashion, learning is really pretty easy.

Do you have something in particular that your having trouble with? I'm not doing much modelling these days cuz I'm in grad school, but I'm happy to try to help.

I've never had anyone refuse to help me, when I ask properly. In many cases people have built a gmax file to illustrate the points, which I'd be happy to do for you if you wish.

That's probably a more helpful notion than sharing output for the reasons Bill said.

Best,
Bob

 

[gsnde]

Bill statement has a lot of truth. A friendly soul once gave me the source to a absolutely beautiful gate object. This gate is open. I tried so many times to get an animated object out of this which is closed by default and opens when approaching it, but to no avail..., I am just not any good with GMAx (if anybody volunteers to do that part for me I would be grateful )

 

[MarkkuS]

I can agree that making scenery is more like an art. You don't want others to "improve" your painting.

But I still think if you reveal the background information, others can learn from it. For example:
- Gmax files, where the stack is not collapsed, shows what operations have been done.
- Original camera images shows what pictures have been taken.
- Photoshop och GIMP images files, with all the layers intact, shows details how the texture has been created.
- Written notes (textfiles or notes scanned to pdf) reveals your ideas, facts etc.

If we talk about the tools we use, the situation is different. I think what is truth in the programming community, should be the truth in the scenery tool community. But people in general don't share the source code for scenery tools. Instead the wheel in invented again and again for every new version of FS.

Take the AFCAD2 tool as an example. I don't think the source code for that has ever been available to others. So when the ADE and FSX Planner was developed, they had to start on square one (or square two, depending on their experience). Invent the wheel again.

For every new FS version lot of tools, sceneries, aircrafts are thrown on the scrapheap. What a waste of labour! Just because the developers don't give away enough information, so others can't port the files to the next generation of the FS.

An other benefit of sharing code is labour division. Because Linus Torvalds shared his work with others, we have the Linux operation system. If he had insisted making all work by himself, do you think we would have Linux today?

The hobby FS developers community needs a paradigm shift.

 

[scruffyduck]

Take the AFCAD2 tool as an example. I don't think the source code for that has ever been available to others. So when the ADE and FSX Planner was developed, they had to start on square one (or square two, depending on their experience). Invent the wheel again.

I think you have to be very careful here. Theoretically that makes sense but practically (and I guess I should know ) taking this as an example there are an awful lot of variables to consider. The difference in programming languages and the differences in design philosophy (the degree of object orientation for example) mean that unless you are a skilled programmer (and by the sound of things you are ) then you can spend more time figuring out how something was done than setting out and doing it in the most sensible way for the tools you have at hand. To be honest I learn a lot from looking at what a program like AFCAD does and why rather than how it does it in C or C++ or VB6 or Java or whatever it might be coded in. But then I am just an amateur hobby programmer and for me developing my tools is as much about learning how to do things than re-inventing the wheel - personally that is a large part of my motiviation.

 

[MarkkuS]

Theoretically that makes sense but practically (and I guess I should know ) taking this as an example there are an awful lot of variables to consider. The difference in programming languages and the differences in design philosophy (the degree of object orientation for example) mean that unless you are a skilled programmer (and by the sound of things you are ) then you can spend more time figuring out how something was done than setting out and doing it in the most sensible way for the tools you have at hand. To be honest I learn a lot from looking at what a program like AFCAD does and why rather than how it does it in C or C++ or VB6 or Java or whatever it might be coded in. But then I am just an amateur hobby programmer and for me developing my tools is as much about learning how to do things than re-inventing the wheel - personally that is a large part of my motiviation.

Yes I agree with everything you said! But as I said, the AFCAD2 is just an example. I assume as you/we don't have access to the source code, so it's difficult say if anything could have been reused from it. Refining or reusing was not an option in this case.

The personal motivation of creating something, is one of strongest forces for me in my work. But you can do this, even when not starting from scratch. Improving something, can also be rewarding. That's how many things in the world is done.

 

[bob5568]

MarkkuS....

I keep feeling like the issue you've raised has not been clearly defined...the confusion comes from combining education with maintenance of other peoples work.

The former does not ring true for me. All of us that learned to use the tools did so without studying other peoples gmax source files. We learned because the path to learn is available. Many tutorials exist that tell you enough that once you really understand the light goes on and you have it. Reconstructing from another persons .gmax file what they did has never occurred to me as interesting or even a good use of time.

Lets discard the idea of learning thru looking at source files. Logically its not needed because "if it were needed, none of us would know how to use gmax".

The idea of having a shortcut to using another persons work as thou it was designed to your preference, either version updates or "improvements" seems to be the real issue here.

I'd rather have knowledge of who wishes to use my work. Each time I've been contacted, I've supported the person. My freeware Tacoma Narrows models were made available to a designer that was doing a fs2004 version, and I even made him a custom airport polygon to support his project as he didn't know how to.

That's sufficient. Personally, it wouldn't make sense for one of my structures to appear in Sweden, because they aren't in Sweden...each of my customer structures are photoreal as they exist in reality. Sure, I've made a phone booth or two, like who hasn't, but by the time you fool around with my file, you could make your own...and surely Swedish phone booths look a tad different then American ones.

Re-texturing using my imagry would take longer than making your own model, because you have an intimacy with a model when you make it yourself. Applying the texture is the next natural step. Making the material, is as much part of the organic process of designing as anything else. Using my work is like taking the soul out of the experience.

Finally, updating scenery for a new version without starting over is likely a mistake...certainly a mistake for converting 2004 to fsx. Likely even more of a mistake in the future, as backward compatibility goes away. The new fsx concept of controlling for draw calls and avoiding vertex fracturing is new and to avoid the inefficiency of a 2004 model in fsx, you'd have to remake the materials, and totally retexture. That's the bulk of the work.

Don't miss out on the soul factor here. Doing it yourself is the satisfying way to design.

Everyone on this site is standing by to help you learn the craft.

Best,
Bob

 

[Difar]

MarkkuS

Your point (and many others) are well taken. And I respect all of them.

If you want to have open architect, then may I suggest that you start the ball rolling.

What is, in your thinking, at the top of the list? Aircraft, Scenery, Gauge design? Converters? Reach out to those designer(s) individually. You never know...