Almost exactly a year since we did the original Challenge.
7th July, 8pm UK time.
Grab your choppers for a little point landing chopper fun.
We will be starting at EGHE on the Isles of Scilly.
We will be flying due West to Bishops Rock Lighthouse, which has a nice little Helipad on top.
For Navigational purposes, the Helipad is EGBR, but DO NOT spawn on it, as it places you inside the lighthouse and you cant get out.
To give us a bit more space and variety of landing positions, HMS Ark Royal and HMS Iron Duke will be at anchor just off the Lighthouse. You will need to download both ships ( both ships are enhanced and weather responsive ):-
With regards to the F-35, I refer you to a quote from the Matrix:
Everyone who has stood their ground and fought [the F-35] has died. A number of us have attempted to dedicate our skills to it. It seems those efforts have all resulted in massive frustration. A message to NATO perhaps...
Submitted both deletion requests for those two planes at EGHE, hope they'll accept it.
As I said to Stuart, report to me these kinds of issues and I'll do my best to fix (approx coordinates of the spot would be perfect).
Can you find out who's doing this (it's a deliberate attempt to make Life difficult for folks who are planning FlightNight Adventures) and pass that information along? Or maybe we can figure out who is seeding/booby trapping the scenery and kick their ass out of accessibility to Scenery and seeding it with problems.
What's the vetting process for uploading changes to The Scenery Base? Can anyone upload changes now? Who's vetting the people uploading these changes?
'Cause if it's a Free for All I'm out of FGFS - tired of spending hours and hours so some dipshit can tart up the scenery and implant goodies to make life difficult for others.
Those planes did not exist when Stuart planned the Flight and by later in the week (Thursday) the booby traps magically appeared once Stuart announced the location of the FlightNight. Should be pretty easy to have a look at the logs and see who uploaded changes to that area and ban their ass from further updates.
Or better yet just let me know who it is and what IP they uploaded the changes from and I'll see what I can do on my end.
I'm afraid it doesn't look good for the FG devs taking this very seriously - Thorsten's response to Stuart was effectively "go somewhere else". One would hope that, if it's deliberately anti-social behaviour, a firmer line would be taken, but I'm not holding my breath
The following user(s) said Thank You: Vodoun da Vinci
Meh...classic FGFS bullshit. Anyone can run/ruin the show for anyone/everyone else and your recourse is to bugger off if you don't like it.
Seems the new breed of "Scenery Developers" are just like the old ATC Controllers on crack. No one who actually flies in FGFS would take the time to be a controller as it's just less time away from the drivers seat - no one who actually flies in FGFS would place booby trapped aircraft in the parking lot.
Seems FGFS has become a trash heap for "controllers and losers" with those of us who want to fly and use MP to further camaraderie and Development of stuff to share being given the opportunity to bugger off.
Fingers crossed I can get this under control again because X-Plane is looking better and better these days.
Sorry VooDoo but apart from seeing who uploading new 3D models to the database, it's not possible user side to check out who actually does massive object addition to TS.
But IMO it was an earlier addition because in these latest weeks the database seems overloaded by the massive objects import being submitted (which means they are often reviewed and approved but not included directly into the scenery).
I'm sorry it happened and honestly I think it wasn't intentional by the user who did that, although I'd say better check before uploading.
On my side, I gotta say I've done the same mistake both on EGUL and EGUN sceneries, but that's because they've added parking slots by the time I decided to put my work there (which was done back in 2015) so now I'm trying to fix that. But, and this is shameful, after submitting for removal of the incriminated objects, I've been sent an email by the scenery mod that he was refusing to approve the changes (which I clearly commented as "obstructing parking slots") because there were too much single-model update requests instead of using the "massive import method" which doesn't exist in the case of deletion, so had nothing to do with.
So yeah, now I find myself to re do all the checks and probably gotta do a one-object-per-day deletion request because of that.
We'll see then...
PS: One last note, what Thorsten said to Stuart is completely non-sense to me. Not going further as I guess it doesn't need any more explanation.
Breakin' the sound barrier every day. Oh God, that's EGOD!
Thanks for the update, Mav. It is worrying, if I understand you correctly, that the scenery mod is not willing to consider approving changes where they affect the user experience as much as this problem does. Whilst I can believe that a backlog of scenery submissions and a lack of an organised plan to oversee them may be responsible, it's difficult - in the light of that email - to not see a certain degree of malice, or at least wilful stubbornness there.
I think we probably need to move up a gear on this. I suggest we do some research, locate some prominent examples of the issue and make sure they affect a significant proportion of people, and then embark on a diplomatic attempt at demonstrating the issues. If we do our homework, play nice, and make our case that it's a serious issue, not just for multiplayer but for anybody, and we still meet a brick wall, we'd have to assume that there is some institutional effort to annoy, or even exclude, some people from using FG.
As if it doesn't already have enough issues to spoil the user experience...
You made a wise, honorable and grown-up proposal there.
My -admittedly very childish- analysis is: You/we have a lot of effort because there are too many idiots like Thorsten running wild in FG.
I mean, COME ON! How silly is it, to think it would be a good idea to place ANY aircraft on ANY parking spot that is offered to the pilot in the launcher for a start up????
BTW, somehow I doubt that somebody is deliberately trying to ruin our flight nights. Why would anybody? Seriously, is there a reason to think that somebody spends time to do shit like this just to annoy a small group of (the nicest) people (in the world)?
I've had good email conversations with Thorsten (Renk), but he can be very abrasive on the forum - he doesn't do MP at all so I've found sometimes he dismisses things that he can't understand the reason for - like pretty much anything to do with MP
If you want a feature for the scenery system (like adding userid for logging purposes) then you need to suggest it to Torsten (Dreyer) but I think getting it would be unlikely
Algy's suggestion of politely highlighting the issue as a problem for all players (MP or not) seems to me to be a good way forward
I have always said it - FG attracts people with single-minded (and often bloody-minded) views, little experience or interest in diplomacy, and sometimes just pure mischief-makers, or those who enjoy online conflict. We founded FGUK in order to escape all that, but that protection only goes so far.
I would certainly like to believe nobody would take out time to deliberately spoil the experience, but sadly, the whole internet has a problem with that, and FlightGear is generally worse than the status quo for it, so unfortunately it is perfectly plausible. I'm proposing this "adult and honourable" (thanks!) move so as to prevent us falling too far into acrimony. It may be unavoidable in the long run, but I think we should try a measured approach first.
There will be a new thread popping up for this, in the interests of good moderation. See you there!