C++ Flight Simulator Source Code

[Lavonda Busing]

Ijust want to say, some of the projects being spun off of the FBW source code are amazing. Probably most people know about the Headwind A330, which is based off the FBW source code: -server.flightsim.to/file/18198/airbus-a330-900neo-conversion.

A big thanks to the teams working on the spinoff projects based on the FBW source code. But of course, also a big thanks to the FBW team for making their source code available to other project teams to use.

This is how a successful freeware community should operate. New projects shouldn't have to re-invent the wheel. But at the same time, new projects should give credit if they are using source code so that they don't have to re-invent the wheel. And above all, hopefully there are teams, such as FBW, that are gracious enough to allow the community to make projects off their source code, and FBW has allowed this. Thanks to all involved for their hard work!

its not bad with the Mod. Not recommending it either though. I liked LVFR as a scenery developer so its a shame they are going this route but maybe the FBW team can give this model a look when they decide to do A21N. Its not bad looking. The worst part (to me) is how bright the tail is at night with the logo lights on. Feels very FS2004ish

Switching to open source would strip Laminar of control over their own product, the direction it goes in, and the speed it evolves at. Not ideal, if we're hoping for consistent and constant development like we're used to.

Not to bash open source here. There are certainly incredible open source projects that have persisted and improved for many years. However, it think it's a different story trying to transition a formerly commercial product to open source than starting with open source from the very beginning.

On the other hand, when proprietary software goes open source, it is generally from what I have seen, because the developer / owner of the IP has thrown in the towel. I don't believe it would be a sign of anything good to come for X-Plane.

There are certainly incredible open source projects that have persisted and improved for many years. However, it think it's a different story trying to transition a formerly commercial product to open source than starting with open source from the very beginning.

Open source is good and nice, but it does indeed change one's business model if they wish to be profitable. There is nothing wrong with wanting to make a living off of what one does, and open-source can complicate matters. This is not to say that you can't have both, but the typical model for that condition is that someone has an open engine with paid content. X-Plane, consequentially, is the exact opposite in many regards: Laminar makes the engine and the core assets, and it's up to the user community to use the excellent included or third-party tools of their choice to do it. Needless to say, I do not think you're going to inspire the good fellows over at LR to change their model like so.

And, for the record, I want to say that I'm a fan of open source! Or rather, I really dig the idea. However, I think it's like this in more cases than not, because I can relate to it personally: people like open software for MANY reasons, but the majority of them are not developers, even if they want to be. I'm not a dev. I wish I was - I muse about it from time to time! But, until I get cracking on code, I am not a dev. At best I am a hobbyist, and it's been, like, YEARS since I coded anything. And the stuff I've coded has only been console window programs. They work and they're cool, but putting together a real interactive engine or simulation like you see in X-Plane, or any game for that matter, is a different story. Even working on some random program to get it working again, or porting it to a new OS, is no mean feat. To put it bluntly, there are a lot of people, including myself from time to time, that ask for something to be open source, but the vast majority of those people will not get themselves to do any modicum of work on the project even if they had any idea of where to start.

...To that end, the nice thing about closed-source projects under development is that you are paying a developer (LR in this case) to work full-time to advance the state-of-the-art. You pay them, and they take care of the rest. You have enough to worry about! You may not always get exactly what you want, but as a customer, you definitely have a voice! In fact, in my own dweeby way, I'm really stoked that I've had the opportunity to pass e-mails and ideas around with some of the folks at LR! Really, how many companies can you say that about? Closed-source definitely has its benefits, because if a company wants to stick around in a competitive environment, they are going to WORK to stay in business. LR has been around for a long time, and I anticipate they're going to stick around, too.

Now, the nice thing about open projects is that anyone can jump in and contribute if they've got the talent or are willing to learn. But, they are hobbyists - there's nothing wrong with that, and some of those hobbyists put out products that give outrageously overpriced software a run for its money (think Inkscape and GIMP, etc.)! However, being hobbyists generally means that they cannot AFFORD, in most cases, to spend all of their time advancing a project. As a result, open software is generally never at the bleeding edge of technology. And, if it is, there's a good chance they've been financed by someone who can afford to do so. I doubt X-Plane as you know it would be as far along as it is being open -source. Again, I love open source - I use the software and switched to Linux, for Pete's sake! But, for all the wondrous ideals (and they are indeed wondrous!), the reality is that all-the-world cannot, literally cannot, afford to work that way.

To end this rant, let me put it like this: in the Middle Ages, there were Guilds and independent craftsmen that weren't associated with said Guilds. When ever the proportion of tradesmen wasn't evenly balanced between those two camps, there was always some sort of problem - be it quality, cost, etc. Too much of one thing isn't necessarily good. It is the same with software. You need the open software the people make and use for themselves, and you need the software they pay for, and in turn allows the developers to make a living (making software). To that end, I'd argue the balance is pretty good now-a-days!

To the OP: Not sure of your rationale for thinking XP should be open-source. If you think you can in fact contribute, send something to Austin. Otherwise, get FG and its code, and make something work. If the latter works, you rock, dude. If not, take another read through this post.

NOW, I should also add that I wish companies would be more willing to release the source for software they no longer have any desire to develop. I think it would be cool to have Space Combat as open source, even though I have made clear I'd not know where to go or how with it. BUT, that probably won't happen - several years ago, "The Man" told me that the application in question was still written with proprietary code, and so it is likely to not see the light of day any time soon. But, I could be wrong. Who knows?

My main hobby is photography. On my iMac, I have GIMP, GNU Imaging Manipulation Program, open source, as well as Adobe's commercial photographer suite subscription, Lightroom (Lr) and Photoshop (Ps), at a cost of $10/month. GIMP in many ways is similar to Ps and could theoretically supplant it for me and save me the equivalent cost of a roll of film a month. While GIMP is good for a trivial mod or two (I actually use it in a Linux environment to convert Postscript files to PDFs), Lr and Ps are superior. With the Adobe suite, I can take a thousand photos, cull them, and edit them as needed in little time. Additionally, Adobe knows what I need as a photographer. Are they perfect? No. They're good however, and represent a good value for me.

I like and use open source tools. Most of the work I do is in a Linux (re: open source) environment. I also use commercial tools. I think an open source X-Plane would not work well as a project, and I think the product would lose direction and focus.

Yes Sxribe, that's is the big problem and why open source is unlikely. But in many open source projects the primary developers offer something extra for $$. I'm just thinking Larimar could speed up development and open source could be a strategy.

Back in 1989, I was introduced to Microsoft Flight Simulator version 4.I thought it was incredible that I could fly aroundin a 3D environment, and this was something that got me interested in 3D graphics. However, I always had trouble flying the plane,because I only had a 14 inch CRT monitor, and you had a small field of view out the front of the plane. Since you couldn't see leftor right, you were missing important flying cues, and it made flying much more difficult than in a real plane. I've seen some people try to usejoystick hats or head trackers, but those always require you to look forwards even if you are virtually looking another direction - it is notintuitive for your brain to understand. So at the time I realized this was a problem, and I'd seen commercial immersiveflight simulators in books, but they were too expensive, so I had to wait a few decades for things to become a bit more affordable! However,recently in 2017 I built my own immersive indoor flight simulator,using three large 42" televisions and X-Plane 11. This provides a muchmore realistic experience, and it is finally the flight simulator I was always looking for.

I'm a bit of a fan of emulators, so I used DOSBox on Linux to start up Microsoft Flight Simulator version 4 on a big monitor. It is amazinghow low-res 640x350 is when displayed on a large 1920x1080 display, although you didn't notice it as much on a 14 inch CRT,which is smaller than many laptops these days. DOSBox supports emulating old analog PC joysticks, so I was able to configure FS4 touse my yoke and throttle. I always wanted to have one of those as a kid as well, and it worked great. While there wasn't muchfor graphics, it worked with a nice smooth frame rate, and it was pretty cool.

3a8082e126