On Sunday 09 November 2003 21:16, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > John Barrett writes: > > Would a --no-combat option on the server be acceptable ?? > > > > (i.e. someone can pull the trigger, but it wont do anything to the > > multiplayer world -- they could still use you for a target, but you would > > never see the ordinance) > > That sounds reasonable. I would add the additional condition that > people running with --no-combat would not even see people running with > --combat. I think we should keep the two worlds completely separate. > I suppose if the combat people want to see me, that's ok, but I don't > want to see them. The idea is that if a few of us are flying around > the pattern following civilian rules, it doesn't make sense to have a > bunch of combat planes looping around and making high speed passes on > us. That doesn't make sense for the civilian world ... and if we are > doing what we are supposed to be doing, seeing the combat aircraft > using as as target practice could be very disruptive. Ultimately I > think I would vote for keeping the two worlds entirely separate. > > Regards, > > Curt. > -- > Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project > Twin Cities curt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org > Minnesota http://www.flightgear.org/~curt http:// www.flightgear.org
Wouldn't it be better to have several instances of the server, running either a non-combat environment or a combat environment, but not trying to do both at the same time? Non-combat servers would talk to other non-combat servers, and like-wise with the combat servers. I'd be a bit concerned about problems with, for example, the combat environment affecting the non-combat environment, and visa-versa. LeeE _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
