----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Elliott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I read your later post after I'd sent that:) I agree that the server > operator choosing the type of world is a good idea. > > However, there's potential for quite a wide range of realistic scenarios > including elements of both non-combat and combat features.
As I see it -- the client and server should both be capable of the full range of activities, the only question is then "do weapons work or not ??". Practicing aircraft carrier landings does not require weapons :) > > For example, air/sea rescue missions (and their code infrastructure) would > be appropriate in most multiplayer scenarios, both non-combat and combat > - if you were flying ga into/out of, or in the vicinity of an airfield > that hosted air/sea rescue services in a non-combat world it would be > realstic for those operations to occur at the same time and even > interfere with normal flying in that world, according to the appriopriate > procedures. That applies to most everything one might do with FG except weapons code, and I consider the weapons code to be a small burden to non-combat users in terms of increased executable size and additional airplane information that wont get used in their scenarios -- the combat system doesnt need to be intrusive, but it needs to be there :) And except for specific items such as missiles and cannons, many parts of the combat system are useful for non-combat scenarios -- flying with drop tanks, changes in FDM based on changes in load -- crop dusting :) > > Hmm... perhaps the person who was thinking about puting some life on the > ground might like to try shipping first as it might be easier than trying > to follow roads;) Keep going -- lotsa other things that can be added :) One issue is consistency of display -- I would say making ship/vehicle positions determinstic based on time, so that all clients can use the server clock as a reference for controlling motion, and all the clients on a given server will see vehicles of this type at the same locations and with the same motions. > > Similarly, and bearing in mind that some work has been done on simulating > failures, it could be possible for an a/c to declare an emergency, say an > engine fire on a multiple, that disrupts all the other folk in the > curcuit. Be interesting to see how AI ATC code could be setup to deal with that :) > > Realistically, civil airliners have also been shot down, but I can't see > anyone really wanting to try that scenario as it's a bit pointless, or > seems so to me. > No 9/11 here please !!! Someone may want to do scenarios like that, its certainly possible, but not something I'm personally interested in. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
