Discussion of contributions to MS2/extra
Moderators: jsmcortina, muythaibxr
Re: Ideia: AFR safe cut
Hi Ken,
Not to wade into this, but I didn't see any statement from gslender that you (the devs) don't allow firmware changes. The new FW incorporating some of his changes is proof that you do. It is a big step forward, with the improved idle stuff. So let's just keep the dialog going, since we all have the same goal in mind, which is to make MS the best it can be!
Greg
Not to wade into this, but I didn't see any statement from gslender that you (the devs) don't allow firmware changes. The new FW incorporating some of his changes is proof that you do. It is a big step forward, with the improved idle stuff. So let's just keep the dialog going, since we all have the same goal in mind, which is to make MS the best it can be!
Greg
1996 Mazda MX-5 1.6L NA6/ Mazdaspeed M45 SC/ BSP AW Intercooler/ Maruha F-cams/ 425cc RX-8 injectors/ DIYPNP
MS2/Extra test mule
MS2/Extra test mule
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8228
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:48 pm
Re: Ideia: AFR safe cut
OK so maybe I read between the lines too much... he said we "discourage" it. We really don't. If you have a new idea that we haven't thought of or similar, we encourage it. We accepted Robs' speedups for the interpolation routines with nothing more than some testing and an hour or two of code review. We discourage people from trying to rehash things we've already done that we see as "MS3" features. We also do not accept "GPL" code since it is incompatible with our license.
I'd say that by continuing to release source, we encourage contributions. We just encourage bug fixes and unique or novel contributions. We even release source on MS3 though a release back to try to help discourage thieves from stealing our latest code and sticking it on whatever hardware they decide to create while still allowing people to have the source and potentially contribute. So far this has worked at least as far as the thieves go.
Ken
I'd say that by continuing to release source, we encourage contributions. We just encourage bug fixes and unique or novel contributions. We even release source on MS3 though a release back to try to help discourage thieves from stealing our latest code and sticking it on whatever hardware they decide to create while still allowing people to have the source and potentially contribute. So far this has worked at least as far as the thieves go.
Ken
Megasquirt is not for use on pollution controlled vehicles. Any advice I give is for off road use only.
-
- Super MS/Extra'er
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 5:29 am
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Ideia: AFR safe cut
Ok. I'd actually be terrilby dissapointed if the message you recieved from my words above were that you "don't allow changes to the firmware" - this wasn't my point and I'll try to correct that as I'm keen to ensure I come across as genuine in my desire to help and improve "Megasquirt MSEXTRA / MS3EFI" as I think it is a novell and enspring solution to the engine management market. Whether a commercial business or just a hobby, I think you've got something great here and believe this discussion is purely designed to see it prosper. I don't think anyone is suggesting anything that detracts from the future success.muythaibxr wrote:OK so maybe I read between the lines too much... he said we "discourage" it. We really don't. If you have a new idea that we haven't thought of or similar, we encourage it. We accepted Robs' speedups for the interpolation routines with nothing more than some testing and an hour or two of code review. We discourage people from trying to rehash things we've already done that we see as "MS3" features. We also do not accept "GPL" code since it is incompatible with our license.
I'd say that by continuing to release source, we encourage contributions. We just encourage bug fixes and unique or novel contributions. We even release source on MS3 though a release back to try to help discourage thieves from stealing our latest code and sticking it on whatever hardware they decide to create. So far this has worked.
Ken
I was just trying to point out that you've been clear to not allow open contributions (eg. I've built feature X and helps solve this problem and here it is for others to enjoy). Open contributions generally either get ignored because they are irrelevant to most users, or included in the next sensible release, or even spark some thoughts around an equivalent solution is provided that produces a similar outcome (perhaps using part of the contributed implementation or by you doing it a better or smarter way). It gets included because people test it and confirm that it works, and that it helps them, and that generally it makes sense to improve and enhance the platform.
I'm suggesting that it seems open contributions are not encouraged as you've essentially stated that doing so is not going to get into any future releases - perhaps I have this wrong then, as I thought you were clear in the instruction that you essentially prohibted any contributions (mods) that mirrored functionality in MS3, regardless of how beneficial to the users.
When I asked can we release a mod with an added feature, you responded with...
That seems to discourage open contributions where they clash with MS3 - that's fairly closed in terms of contributions yeah? I'm still unsure where providing a mod sits - even one that solves a similar problem that MS3 solves, but does so that is very different (and probably not as rich or effective)?We are OK with enhancements being added provided that they don't duplicate functionality we've already added to ms3.
I really hope you wont take this personally - so again appologies if that has occured - intention is to share thoughts and opinions about what is occuring. The intention here is to maximise the investment people have made in MS2 (and for some that is very recently and significantly if you take into account testing equipment, add on boards and time), especially when there really is little downside if someone is willing to do the work, test it, document it and offer it for free. Worst case is that the mod gets abandonded and nobody uses it. Best case is that it makes its way into MS3 (code or documentation) and everyone then benefits from that!
As example, the work we've done on AC-idle-up and idle improvements originally shouldn't have been made available to MS2 - part of it probably met your criteria for not being included, but the work we've done here has uncovered and fixed some MS3 bugs, found ways to improve the solution for MS3 and done so without major investment in your personal time - that's gotta be a good thing yeah?
G
Mazda MX5 + MS3 Pro
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8228
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:48 pm
Re: Discussion of contributions to MS2/extra
Clearly we were wrong about people wanting to contribute even though nobody wanted to until we did MS3 4-5 years after we started MS2/extra. We need to have an internal discussion about it and come to a new decision. Until then, please refrain from backporting features from MS3, even in crippled form without explicit permission. So this isn't a "no you'll never be able to" answer, it's a "not right now pending further internal discussion" answer.
Ken
Ken
Megasquirt is not for use on pollution controlled vehicles. Any advice I give is for off road use only.
Re: Discussion of contributions to MS2/extra
Ken,
All the wailing was because many (including me) had taken recent comments as being in the vein of "no you'll never be able to." I confess there may be a little bit of the small child who screams for the return of the toy that he had rarely otherwise played with. There is also an aspect of "but I hadn't gotten to asking about that," not to mention (as far as MS3 backport requests go) a large portion of "Hey, that's neat! Can we make MINE do that?!"
"(N)ot right now pending further internal discussion" is a dramatic shift (and improvement), so I for one am going to sit down, drink my beer, and try very hard not to annoy the devs into yelling, "NO! Now stop asking!!"
All the wailing was because many (including me) had taken recent comments as being in the vein of "no you'll never be able to." I confess there may be a little bit of the small child who screams for the return of the toy that he had rarely otherwise played with. There is also an aspect of "but I hadn't gotten to asking about that," not to mention (as far as MS3 backport requests go) a large portion of "Hey, that's neat! Can we make MINE do that?!"
"(N)ot right now pending further internal discussion" is a dramatic shift (and improvement), so I for one am going to sit down, drink my beer, and try very hard not to annoy the devs into yelling, "NO! Now stop asking!!"
QuadraMAP Sensor Module -- PWM-to-Stepper Controller -- Dual Coil Driver
Coming soon: OctoMAP Sensor Module
TTR Ignition Systems
Coming soon: OctoMAP Sensor Module
TTR Ignition Systems
Re: Discussion of contributions to MS2/extra
Hi.
I totally understand that stealing of ideas becomes a major problem. At least if I consider the fact that Megasquirt is a commercial product (many people do not understand this as it seems.... ).
But the community always was that, what MS made different in contrast to ready-to-buy-systems. I think Gslenders post/efforts showed quite clearly what can be achieved that way. Locking the sources and feature-freeze at MS2 is not the best way to solve it, I think.
Take my requirements as an example: I need something that fits together with my V2.2 board into an OEM ECU housing. I do not really need the additional features of MS3. If there was some hardware that would fit I would buy it. Having that said: I would pay for MS2 code enhancements/back-porting as well, no matter if open or closed source.
The Software is the challenging thing at MS, not the hardware. So it would be more straight forward to find a way to let people pay for MS software, not for the hardware (or no only for this).
Just look at Phils TS project, you can see that people are willing to pay for it. That doesn't seem to be the point.
Just my 2 cent....
Thomas
I totally understand that stealing of ideas becomes a major problem. At least if I consider the fact that Megasquirt is a commercial product (many people do not understand this as it seems.... ).
But the community always was that, what MS made different in contrast to ready-to-buy-systems. I think Gslenders post/efforts showed quite clearly what can be achieved that way. Locking the sources and feature-freeze at MS2 is not the best way to solve it, I think.
Take my requirements as an example: I need something that fits together with my V2.2 board into an OEM ECU housing. I do not really need the additional features of MS3. If there was some hardware that would fit I would buy it. Having that said: I would pay for MS2 code enhancements/back-porting as well, no matter if open or closed source.
The Software is the challenging thing at MS, not the hardware. So it would be more straight forward to find a way to let people pay for MS software, not for the hardware (or no only for this).
Just look at Phils TS project, you can see that people are willing to pay for it. That doesn't seem to be the point.
Just my 2 cent....
Thomas
Re: Discussion of contributions to MS2/extra
If MS2extra was allowed to be all it could be then MS3 sales would drop, everything is about that, surely others have spotted this 'elephant in the room' ?
-
- Master MS/Extra'er
- Posts: 612
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:28 pm
Re: Discussion of contributions to MS2/extra
I disagree. ms2 is a great economical option for a stand alone but ms3 is FAR superior, if you look at the capabilities of ms3 it is also a bang for the buck too.Red_Baron wrote:If MS2extra was allowed to be all it could be then MS3 sales would drop, everything is about that, surely others have spotted this 'elephant in the room' ?
Juan
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8228
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:48 pm
Re: Discussion of contributions to MS2/extra
We have already said we are working on a plan. Until then there is nothing else to discuss, so we are locking this thread.
Ken
Ken
Megasquirt is not for use on pollution controlled vehicles. Any advice I give is for off road use only.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8228
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:48 pm
Re: Discussion of contributions to MS2/extra
I do not believe this to be the case since "all it could be" is still nowhere near what is possible with ms3.Red_Baron wrote:If MS2extra was allowed to be all it could be then MS3 sales would drop, everything is about that, surely others have spotted this 'elephant in the room' ?
(It is half the speed and each instruction takes more clock cycles, no XGATE. Those 2 ALONE severely limit what it can do compared to MS3, even if there is more space left for features).
Ken
Megasquirt is not for use on pollution controlled vehicles. Any advice I give is for off road use only.