On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:38:18 -0500, Chris wrote in message
1296095898.27791.1.camel@chrison-Aspire-5741G:
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 23:41 -0700, jac...@lfstech.com wrote:
How about a show of hands? Is there enough interest and volunteers
to organize a team to tackle the problem?
As I said
Chris,
I think the benefit of having sort of a VATSIM-interface or -bridge for
FlightGear is pretty much unquestioned, therefore I'll leave these
details out. The point is a completely different one and probably
consist of just two simple parts:
1.) Like probably almost every other OpenSource
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:56:41 + (UTC), Martin wrote in message
ihor4p$ls0k$1...@osprey.mgras.de:
Chris,
I think the benefit of having sort of a VATSIM-interface or -bridge
for FlightGear is pretty much unquestioned, therefore I'll leave these
details out. The point is a completely
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 23:41 -0700, jac...@lfstech.com wrote:
How about a show of hands? Is there enough interest and volunteers to
organize a team to tackle the problem?
As I said in my original post, I'm not a programmer so, unfortunately, I
couldn't help in that regard. However, I'd be
[PREFACE: I'm a FG end-user who's not a programmer, nor am I an
intellectual property rights attorney. My sole desire is to use FG as a
realistic flight similator, as opposed to using it as a fun game.
Please consider the remarks below in that context. Thanks!]
On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 19:15
HI Chris,
Here are a couple quick comment in reply ...
My sense is that there are very few people who would outright oppose a
vatsim interface to flightgear. I think most people would consider this is
a good thing.
Here is my question/concern. If some developer gets approved by vatsim and
Hi,
Hmmm, I would take it one step further...
You write and operate an FG/VATSIM server running on a dedicated
machine(s) and publish the FG open source interface and protocol. The
VATSIM side and source in the server is closed and operates with an
approved NDA. Anyone may join from the FG
: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?From: Curtis Olson curtol...@gmail.comDate: Tue, January 25, 2011 10:26 pmTo: chrison...@yahoo.ca, FlightGear developers discussionsflightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.netHI Chris,
Here are a couple quick comment in reply ...
My sense is that there are very few people who
VATSIM requires any developer to sign a NDA before having access to
their network, so it's not possible to make a open source client. SB747
was made before the NDA requirement, but I suppose sources can't be
released due to obvious licensing issues.
It seems it has been fixed so that it reports
I suppose most of the people here aren't willing to sign a NDA to code
something... I wouldn't be willing to do that if I could code.
I would like to have atleast native binary-only program instead of
running it through wine, since there isn't any other way, but that's
only me :)
2011/1/20
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Victhor victhor.fos...@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose most of the people here aren't willing to sign a NDA to code
something... I wouldn't be willing to do that if I could code.
Not only that, but I personally don't even want to join or support an
organization that
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Csaba Halász wrote:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Victhor victhor.fos...@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose most of the people here aren't willing to sign a NDA to code
something... I wouldn't be willing to do that if I could code.
Not only that, but I personally don't even
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Gene Buckle wrote:
I doubt it has anything to do with that Csaba. AFAIK, their primary
concern is with griefers ruining the network for others.
Here's the problem as I see it. Any FlightGear interface will necessarily
have a closed source interface to the
Csaba Halász wrote:
Not only that, but I personally don't even want to join or support an
organization that requires NDA and plays silly corporate games instead
of openly welcoming new arrivals. But that's just me.
No, not just you, count me in,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly -
Looking over the wiki page and info. Is Sb747 and AVC limited to MS windows based machines? Or is there a Linux version as well? Is source available?
Last email on the FG forum from reeed was dated Apr 05, 2010.
John
Original Message Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:41 PM, jack.w wrote:
Looking over the wiki page and info. Is Sb747 and AVC limited to MS
windows based machines? Or is there a Linux version as well? Is source
available?
Only the sources of Reed's FlightGear interface (SquawkGear) is available,
but not those
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 4:39 PM, jack.w wrote:
Is this a feature in the latest git version? There have been discussions
over the years on hooking into the IVAO and VATSIM communities. Was not
aware that the connection had been made.
Giving a talk in March at UC Davis on using FlightGear in
Neat! :-)
Thank you for the info andquick reply.
Will give it a try
Jack
Original Message Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?From: ThorstenB bre...@gmail.comDate: Sat, January 15, 2011 9:20 amTo: FlightGear developers discussionsflightgear-devel
Hi Tim,
In article 98ffb57a0902061401q1383f347lf7b730d98c97c...@mail.gmail.com you
wrote:
First, you should know that neither Ross or I nor most of VATSIM view our
current closed-source/NDA arrangement as ideal, and we are working our way
(albeit quite slowly) to a future version that will
Hi Martin,
Both Ross (who was VP Development) and I (as VP Web Services) resigned our
positions over the summer. A replacement VP Development has not yet been
named. You may want to contact Dave Klain, VATSIM's new President, at
d.kl...@vatsim.net for the latest information.
Best, Tim
On Tue,
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Tim Krajcar wrote:
Hi there,
I'm sure you've all seen the news recently of Microsoft closing the ACES
Studio and throwing doubt on the future of the Flight Simulator franchise.
I'm a member of VATSIM's Board of Governors; my official position is VP of
Web
Curtis,
Thanks for the response.
This is in fact how a number of our clients operate. There is no
VATSIM-specific code in MSFS or XP at all. the VATSIM client joins a
multiplayer session hosted by the user, and then pushes other VATSIM users'
data as MP planes into the client. Similarly, the
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 12:46:31 +1300, James wrote in message
498ccbd7.1030...@gogo.co.nz:
Tim Krajcar wrote:
Your suggestion was to code a MP server that interfaces with
VATSIM; mine is to code a MP client that connects to FG running as
a MP server. Both are certainly workable ideas and I
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:36:46 +0100, Lee wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ultimately though, _all_ software will be designed by AIs and
'who' will 'own' it then? :)
..mmm, after AII; AI Intuition, porcupine aviation etc. ;o)
...but until then we have both O/S C/S s/w and that's
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:50:34 +0200, Major wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As to my suggestion of linking FG and X-Plane to fly FG on VATSIM, I
haven't forgotten the project but haven't actually got a working
installation of X-Plane under Linux that would allow me to write a
plugin. I'll
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:37:39 +0200, Major wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
..you've probably heard drop ATI windroid driver and use Xorg's
ati|radeon before. Very recent video card?
X600, there's no 3D support in Xorg, AFAIR.
..unless you have Alzheimer and still remember
As to IVAO, it appears to be a much smaller community that VATSIM, so
it's not even worth talking about in this context.
Is a 61,400 member community not worth talking about? :)
If you're based in Europe then IVAO is normally a lot more active during the
evenings than VATSIM - one of the
Major A wrote:
I see another issue here. Even if the licensing issue is solved, there
would
still be problems. For example, planes hovering/submerging on taxiways and
runways, because both us and MSFS have different scenery. To avoid this
problem, we would have to force MSFS to use
Martin Spott wrote:
Hmm, do M$F$ and X-Plane use different ellipsoids for their scenery ?
To my understanding as long as both use an international acknowledged
reference system like WGS84, then there should not be the requirement
for a reference point.
Everything in FlightGear that relates to
As to IVAO, it appears to be a much smaller community that VATSIM, so
it's not even worth talking about in this context.
Is a 61,400 member community not worth talking about? :)
I just wanted to check myself, but the website doesn't seem to be very
functional...
If you're based in
X600, there's no 3D support in Xorg, AFAIR.
..unless you have Alzheimer and still remember checking
while you wrote this, chk this moving target again. ;o)
No, I'm not quite old enough for Alzheimer's. You're right, the latest
version does seem to do 3D on my card (at least glxinfo
The main problem here is when aircraft from other simulators taxi around
airports. Unfortunately, this is one of the most interesting things to
look at. FG could perhaps come up with a heuristic for deciding when an
aircraft has WOW and force it to ground level. Again, that could begin
What exactly do you mean by compromising Open Source in the
context of getting FG working with closed source/proprietary
software?
While I much prefer O/S I'll use whatever software I want and
don't feel any qualms about using C/S proprietary software.
Software is a tool, not a religion and
On Tuesday 13 June 2006 22:13, Major A wrote:
As to IVAO, it appears to be a much smaller community that VATSIM, so
it's not even worth talking about in this context.
Is a 61,400 member community not worth talking about? :)
I just wanted to check myself, but the website doesn't seem
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
The issue is that the specific elevation of a specific point on the
earth can be different between sims.
Ok, this is obvious and in fact is an issue of scenery fidelity, but
it is not a problem that could be resolved by any reference point, as
suspected in the
On 6/13/06, Major A [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As to my suggestion of linking FG and X-Plane to fly FG on VATSIM,
i think better, would be to provide an integration within x-plane that
would allow it to use the FG MP server system.
x-plane has an SDK that would make this quite possible i think,
On 6/13/06, Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
The issue is that the specific elevation of a specific point on the
earth can be different between sims.
Ok, this is obvious and in fact is an issue of scenery fidelity, but
it is not a problem that could be resolved
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:20:08 +0200, Major wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
X600, there's no 3D support in Xorg, AFAIR.
..unless you have Alzheimer and still remember checking
while you wrote this, chk this moving target again. ;o)
No, I'm not quite old enough for Alzheimer's.
On Tuesday 13 June 2006 23:26, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:29:05 +0100, Lee wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What exactly do you mean by compromising Open Source in the
context of getting FG working with closed source/proprietary
software?
..usually this is done by
On 6/13/06, Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tony Pelton wrote:
Read Curt's posting,
i did ... and i think i _do_ understand the basics of the issue ...
he simply assumes that the ground elevation at a
specific location differs between two sims. Different sims have their
scenery
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:04:17 +0100, Lee wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tuesday 13 June 2006 23:26, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:29:05 +0100, Lee wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What exactly do you mean by compromising Open Source in the
context of getting
Hi,
Sorry to barge in again, but I work with the VATSIM guys and can tell
you: you may have licensing issues...email Lefteris to find out about
such a thing, but you may want to find out up-front if the licensing on
the VATSIM VoIP stuff is compatible with FG (either legally or
Just got a reply from Vatsim ive pasted it it below.
:
it's certainly viable to start such a client. However, in order to
connect to the VATSIM network, it needs to be using libraries whose
source code is proprietary to VATSIM (i.e. its source code is under Non
Disclosure Agreement).
If
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Vatsim would be a competitor to our native multiplayer system, right?
Well, we might need some more users of our own system to really
compete with VATSIM :-)
It goes against the windows philosophy of cramming everything into a big
monolithic application, [...]
The
On 6/12/06, Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Justin Smithies wrote:
On the other hand I was told that certain people didn't care about
licensing and hacked the VATSIM authentication protocol
for reference ...
Hi,
Martin Spott schrieb:
The story _I_ was told reads like this:
They have severe difficulties with their user authentication because
the protocol they use is considered to be braindead (TM). So they try
to hide the drawbacks of their authentication protocol by forcing
people to sign an
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:05:28 -0400, Tony wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 6/12/06, Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Justin Smithies wrote:
On the other hand I was told that certain people didn't care about
licensing and hacked the VATSIM authentication protocol
for reference
Hi Ben,
bsupnik wrote:
- VATSIM could require a FG-client to use their libs (under some terms)
as conditions for network approval. I thikn that VASTIM users are
required as part of their membership agreement with the network to only
use approved clients.
Honestly, I'm really curious to
How about we just use our own system based on data from the FG prop tree.
We already have the google map servers , so all we would need to do is get
other people to host their own too and become controllers for different
areas.
For voip / text we could use a secondary app which would run on Win
On Monday 12 June 2006 20:06, Martin Spott wrote:
Honestly, I'm really curious to know what the _real_ driving force is
behind this protectionism.
Is this stupid arrogance (if they want to participate, they'll have to
follow our rules - not matter if it makes sense), simply incompetence
(one
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
If people don't like Vatsim's approach or their licensing terms, you are
welcome to your opinion, but maybe you should take it up with the vatsim
folks rather than firing random shots in the air around here. But if
you do take it up with vatsim directly, please make
Martin Spott wrote:
Ok, in theory having a closed source interface _might_ serve the
licensing issues, _but_:
- Who likes to have to use a closed source module in order to connect
their OpenSource flight simulation to VATSIM ?
Does the bridge module between flightgear and vatsim need to
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
- More important, who of the OpenSource developers likes to maintain
a closed source module, compile it at least for half a dozend
different platforms and play the lonesome cowboy to whom bug
reports will be adressed - without having any chance
Why not just duplicate vatsim with independent GPL programming?
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 5:52 pm, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:39:40 -0500, Curtis wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Martin Spott wrote:
Ok, in theory having a closed source interface _might_ serve the
licensing
On Monday 12 June 2006 15:22, Martin Spott wrote:
Ok, in theory having a closed source interface _might_ serve the
licensing issues, _but_:
- Who likes to have to use a closed source module in order to connect
their OpenSource flight simulation to VATSIM ?
- More important, who of the
Hi Y'all,
GWMobile wrote:
Why not just duplicate vatsim with independent GPL programming?
I think the point of VATSIM (and IVAO) is that they are existing
communities with user bases that show up on a regular basis. If you
wrote a pilot client for FG you could then go fly online on any given
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:47:10 -0400, bsupnik wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Y'all,
GWMobile wrote:
Why not just duplicate vatsim with independent GPL programming?
I think the point of VATSIM (and IVAO) is that they are existing
communities with user bases that show up on a
57 matches
Mail list logo
