I am quickly coming to the conclusion that this particular engine is in almost EXACTLY the same state Targetware 2 is in. There's a barely usable "proof of concept" alpha and an unknown amount of dev help to come. With TW2, regrettably, we can be pretty sure that that help probably isn't going to come. Here, that's an unknown... but it's a BIG factor in the success or failure of this project, in my view.

If we ("we" meaning non-core-dev people and anyone wanting to use this engine for non-modern versions) are to contribute and move this along... we need certain things from the dev team. We need detailed, thorough information on how to build onto and contribute to the game engine. Specifically:

1) We have an untextured F-18 "flying" with no textures, no displays, no HUD. How do we import other aircraft into the game? How do we animate said aircraft (far as I can tell, nothing on the F-18 is animated)? Instruments?

2) Texturing: what file types, formats and techniques must we use to "skin" the F-18, and any other aircraft/objects we may wish to import?

3) How can we create maps? How do we "retrograde" them to 1940s, 1910s, or whenever, and how do we populate them with objects and targets?

4) Flight model: we have a nice FM creation tool, but we need to go deeper. How do we wed this to an imported in-game model? How and where do we edit this for greater fidelity?

4a) Side point: looking at the result of the FM creation tool, I don't see any "input" reflecting the aircraft's specific AIRFOIL; yet, the documentation on the flight engine seems to mention it. I'd like some more reassurance that that data's "in there" and also that we can look at it or tweak it in the FM files.

Like at TW2, I'm waiting for this kind of stuff to appear here. If it doesn't, it's going to be EXCEEDINGLY difficult, if not impossible, for anyone other than the dev team to make any difference.

It's up to THEM, really. If they want contributors, they've got to grease the wheels, or there will be no movement. You can already see that happening at TW2. Two months since the release of that alpha, exactly NO aircraft have been imported or animated. A few have been "plopped into" the environment, but it's like a "rough import" a la 0.64: it's just for show, because nothing really 'works'. And, with no guidance in how to use a completely new set of tools, techniques and even coding language (!) to do this, is it any wonder the mountain of work isn't getting scaled? I just don't understand how they can't SEE this.

Well you got one thing correct and that is that after 5+ years of TW2 development it's no further along than the simulab engine.

Stiglr, we've both seen what happens when a game designer concentrates his opening efforts on objects rather that the support systems around it....

A shallow game of capture the flag and an uphill struggle to wade through 100,000's of lines of code to improve anything.

I'm not worried we don't have a flying plane, as I know its all doable, and the last thing I want is to be in the same boat as before.

Online crewing of positions is not some after thought here its a priority so T4T won't be calling for making some knee jerk reaction to not seeing a pilots position, as its just one of many positions.

Yes I'd like a road map.... but not so someone can call for a shortcut or alter priorities, but just because it'd make it easier to recruit volunteers and to know when to activate them.


Information gathering and making the website function smoothly is a vital support function that will reap benefits in the future, and so is building strong open lines of communication with the simulab team, such that we have mutual respect for each others abilities, something that never occurred at TWland.

The production of GUI's is in my opinion the correct and most valuable input that the T4T team can do for simulab at this moment in time.

I've read so much from people that can't model yet have skills valuable for the making of a combat flight sim. I've read how people would like an open source engine, would like to help sick at TW but are frustrated at the silence. I've read so much on agw over the years and recent months on how they could do it better..

Well now's their opportunity.

I'm thinking day and night on how to bait a hook so as to get a Doug, denada, unclet, etc interested in helping work on the core code over at simulab such that we won't have a capture the flag sim, or lose crewing, or not implement strategy... because I think guys with these skills are our priority to ensure all the good stuff gets done correctly like we've talked about..

Thats my thoughts.... and at least here I can say them without getting a ban.

@bans: you're right on the money... but remembering how you handled our disagreements back on the TW forums, I'm hoping and praying that won't happen here. *PLEASE* tell me there won't be any censorship. People should be able to express their ideas without any reservations. That's really vitally important to a so-called open community.

Anyway, I digress....

The rest of the stuff you wrote is all true, but it still ignores the fact that not everybody will be able to help with code. Not everybody will be able to create (or mastermind) GUIs or build game systems. It's truly wonderful that you have a penchant for that, and it will serve the project well. You are making progress on THAT front.

But, a GUI does not a sim make. There are others who can excel at other things: physically building the aircraft, objects and such. Skinning and artwork. Tilesets for terrain. Writing scenarios (if that's how the gameflow will work) or 'creating the environment'.

But all of these areas, including the stuff you're wizard at, require an understanding of the nuts and bolts of the core engine, and access to it via the spanners of accessibility and of INFORMATION.

Lacking that, little will get done that can coalesce into a playable, enjoyable online game (and that's what we ALL really want, isn't it?). It's simple really, if one doesn't understand how to build a widget, widget production stays low.

All the game components and systems we can contribute to have to be demystified and made EASY to work with. You're an engineer,right? So your understanding is automatically higher than those of us who are (only) writers, teachers, truckers, auto mechanics, office workers, weekend web warriors and such. But, if it's laid out simply enough (sort of how Targetware 0.64's Development Guide was, errors and all), then just about everyone can contribute something (the way they did before Mk9 turned its back on TW 0.64). And that's when this thing can truly take off and keep people's interest as they build.

For myself, I'd start TODAY porting all my aircraft, pits, ships, objects and whatnot over from TW.... but with what I have in hand and in front of me right now, I can't... I don't know how.

I do have one flight model generated for one of the aircraft created in the Simulab way... but I don't understand it enough to vet it, I can't import the 3D to wed it to an in-game aircraft to even begin testing ... so, I'm stuck. And the rest of the systems, like terrain, in-game operation, targets, etc., etc.... none of them are even in the F-18 alpha proof of concept, so that's a dead end, too. I'll bet i'm not the only one with a lot of desire to contribute NOW, but no way to do so.

Again, up to the developers to deliver. Tick-tock, tick-tock....

Many hands make light work...

This is T4T's website stiglr.

We influence Paul at simulab only as a partner working towards the same or similar goal.

You need to take your issues direct, not here.

As for your opening gambit.... you change, I change.... you remain the same..... well status quo.

Simon

Nobody is getting banned for discussions.

Simon's right, detailed questions "engine-wise" need to be on simulab's website. Paul/outlaw78 has all the pieces forming up.
He's further along code-wise then TW.

Paul comes online in multiple places ...yahoo, skype, simulab irc, t4t irc, and two forums.

Friday 5/14/10, Paul and I configured an area where documentation is going to be moved.

It is coming together. Have you ever heard of "Netbeans"? Its a dev platform/framework that can be configured as a front-end for all of the things you bring up Allen. From Pauls discussion on his forum, that will probably be what we see at the mod-dev level to interact with the engine....

Patience Allen...its already ahead of TW2.

Only problem with the Simulab site is the big "Administrator has disabled public posting" setting.

Also, nothing I can find or that's obvious where I can join the "team".

I will sure post my concerns there if I'm ABLE to.

Quote by: Stiglr

Only problem with the Simulab site is the big "Administrator has disabled public posting" setting.

Also, nothing I can find or that's obvious where I can join the "team".

I will sure post my concerns there if I'm ABLE to.

Should show up on the home page. In the left side menus...toward the bottom.

Oh hell...looks like you registered already on the 29th of April!

Nope, nope, no Login or anything of that nature appears on the pages I see.

I have to say the design of that particular BBS really sucks. It needs to be overhauled so that it doesn't actively inhibit or discourage people from joining and contributing. That's the effect it's having now.

You know, it might be refreshing to find a BBS that doesn't require passwords, secret handshakes and all that ADMIN CONTROL crap, and just focuses on people sharing ideas and communicating.

Ah well, one can dream....

And so it begins....

When you figure out how to log in to the website and "post your concerns", please PLEASE, make it clear in your posts you have nothing to do with T4T.

Quote by: Stiglr

Nope, nope, no Login or anything of that nature appears on the pages I see.

I have to say the design of that particular BBS really sucks. It needs to be overhauled so that it doesn't actively inhibit or discourage people from joining and contributing. That's the effect it's having now.

You know, it might be refreshing to find a BBS that doesn't require passwords, secret handshakes and all that ADMIN CONTROL crap, and just focuses on people sharing ideas and communicating.

Ah well, one can dream....

Allen...first of all, did you read my post?? You've already registered!
Second, make sure you are at http://cms.simtechnologies.de. The home page, not a jump to the forum link...
Then, scroll down to the login block...punch in the info you used when you registered THEN go to the forum. Its not like TW's, ie: an external site. The forum is built into the website.

Finally, as for the wishful thinking, we'll open the websites and forums and posting ability as soon as hackers, bots, and trojans die a horrible death. Until then, quit wishing me a TON of work!

Yes, I read it....

it's just that many forums require one to log in every time one visits... and that's why they have a login link or field displaying on all pages, even when the user is not logged in and needs to to be able to post.

For example, what if a person comes to a particular thread or post from a link located someplace else on the net? Why should they have to follow a narrowly defined log-in path, and one that seems more eager to put a big "administrator has disabled posting" message prominently in their face than to encourage them to register or log in?

I know these BBSs are editable.... and this one needs to be rethought, wouldn't you agree?
When you consider what's happening NOW, that should be unacceptable to anyone who wants to encourage people to join, post and contribute. The feel right now, from my vantage point, seems standoffish and cliqueish. And I'm sure that's not what they WANT to project.

OK, I got past that login problem (still needs to be addressed for any who may follow)...

I just started asking the (specific) questions.

Truly hope to be pleasantly surprised by the answers....