Cameron Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In case you are misunderstanding what I am talking about, let me
clarify. Noone (that I know of) is opposed to multiplayer/multipilot
capabilities being in FG.
Absolutely correct !
[...] What we are debating is combat -- ie.
modelling projectiles
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman Vine) [2003.11.06 05:51]:
Melchior FRANZ writes:
* Norman Vine -- Thursday 06 November 2003 10:10:
John Barrett writes:
primary goal: blow them outa the sky !!
FWIW Historicaly FlightGear has resisted being a Military SIM.
(actually resisted
- Original Message -
From: Cameron Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To the folks that want combat, work real hard to support a
--with-combat=no option, or you're gonna get shot down real fast. ;-)
--
Already there and them some :)
I'm working up the protocol base classes at the moment,
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Barrett) [2003.11.07 11:12]:
- Original Message -
From: Cameron Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To the folks that want combat, work real hard to support a
--with-combat=no option, or you're gonna get shot down real fast. ;-)
--
Already there and them
Cameron Moore writes:
In case you are misunderstanding what I am talking about, let me
clarify. Noone (that I know of) is opposed to multiplayer/multipilot
capabilities being in FG. What we are debating is combat -- ie.
modelling projectiles such as bombs, bullets, and rockets and their
Melchior FRANZ writes:
* Norman Vine -- Thursday 06 November 2003 10:10:
John Barrett writes:
primary goal: blow them outa the sky !!
FWIW Historicaly FlightGear has resisted being a Military SIM.
(actually resisted is not a strong enough word)
From the FAQ
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Norman Vine -- Thursday 06 November 2003 12:56:
If you want to simulate combat please make it a separate project [...]
I'm worried, though, that fighting capabilities could mean
tradeoffs for the civilian simulation, which would certainly
not be acceptable. As long as the
Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the FAQ (http://www.flightgear.org/Docs/FAQ.shtml#7.4):
| 7.4 - Is there support for any military scenarios like dog
| fighting or bomb dropping?
[...]
Doesn't sound like such a strong resistance. :-
We could always add some more detail to
- Original Message -
From: Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 6:34 AM
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
* Norman Vine -- Thursday 06 November 2003 10:10:
John Barrett writes:
primary
- Original Message -
From: Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Norman Vine -- Thursday 06
I have an account with DMSO so access to HLA is not a
problem, distributing it probably is ;)
Database interface, what I would love to see would be
a 'common' interface (base class maybe?) that the
server sees (so it will have the basic get, put etc
etc, the implementation of the actual db
John Barrett wrote:
I see no problems here -- everything discussed so far impacts the current FG
code only if you are involved with a server, and having an additional config
option or three to control what gets compiled in is easy enough
Lets see if I can run down the areas of impact:
1.
12 matches
Mail list logo
