Gene Buckle wrote:
Well I feel like a total idiot right now. Everything I'm thinking about
that needs to be done has already had the core done. *slaps forehead*
The entire groundwork has been laid by the contents of the src/Network
directory. The work done for OpenGC stands as a great example
Well I feel like a total idiot right now. Everything I'm thinking about
that needs to be done has already had the core done. *slaps forehead*
The entire groundwork has been laid by the contents of the src/Network
directory. The work done for OpenGC stands as a great example of building
OK, while I'm an avowed lurker, I find that this thread has even more
possibilities
While I certainly want realistic flight performance of A/C to be the
priority (I hope to learn to fly a real plane someday -- probably in my
next life 8-( -- and I'd love it if my FG experience could translate
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 09:46 am, Ima Sudonim wrote:
OK, while I'm an avowed lurker, I find that this thread has even more
possibilities
Wow, is Sudonim our first troll, or have there been others?
Dave
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL
John Barrett wrote:
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
John Barrett wrote:
headless would be without any graphical display at all
multiplayer does multiple planes in the scene, but expects the controlling
logic for all but the local plane (none in the case of headless) to be
handled by processes over the network
I would VERY much like to see the
John Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What this gets us:
[...]
2. running headless connected to a multiplayer server, the FGFS instance can
handle multiple AI driven planes in the world on behalf of the server,
creating a distributed server environment for larger simulations
[...]
I'd like
Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I would propose that the server be structured so that a purely
civilian/non-combat version could be run. I don't want it to be
possible for some idiot to come and blow me out of the sky when I'm
practicing ILS approaches in my C172 at my local airport.
- Original Message -
From: Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not sure I like the idea of FlightGear set up as a server. This will
however keeps the code between the server and the client as close as
possible.
I felt there were too many instances where the current simulation code
Gene Buckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
it offensive to even have source code included that discusses in weapon terms,
To me this is absurd to the extreme.
To you maybe. This may not be the proper forum for you to be asserting
judgements like that anyway (see alt.politics.*) :-D
And in case
it offensive to even have source code included that discusses in weapon terms,
To me this is absurd to the extreme.
To you maybe. This may not be the proper forum for you to be asserting
judgements like that anyway (see alt.politics.*) :-D
...with cross-posts to
- Original Message -
From: Gene Buckle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 2:14 PM
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
it offensive to even have source code included
On Monday, 10 November 2003 21:14, Gene Buckle wrote:
BTW, I know a group of virtual F-16 drivers that would practically wet
themselves over software they could use to drive their cockpits with. :)
Falcon 4.0 doesn't go far enough with their data exports.
I like the idea of FlightGear being
Gene Buckle writes:
I guess my problem is that I'm totally unable to understand why
someone would object to just the _presense_ of munitions code even
being present. It completely baffles me. Even as I sit here
pondering the why, all I can come up with is pejorative commentary
and that's
Gene Buckle writes:
I read the whole post. Really! :)
Hey Gene since I am the one who initially brought up the issue
I guess you are the one responsible for my ears burning :-)
However note I never objected to the presence of munitions in FlightGear.
On Monday, 10 November 2003 21:14, Gene Buckle wrote:
BTW, I know a group of virtual F-16 drivers that would practically wet
themselves over software they could use to drive their cockpits with. :)
Falcon 4.0 doesn't go far enough with their data exports.
I like the idea of FlightGear
- Original Message -
From: Gene Buckle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
On Monday, 10 November 2003 21:14, Gene Buckle wrote
Hey Gene since I am the one who initially brought up the issue
I guess you are the one responsible for my ears burning :-)
Wasn't me. I'd chase down the guy with the matches. :)
What I *was* objecting to and *will* continue to object to is a 'primary goal'
of 'blow them out of the sky'
I think a dynamic shared library system that lets an a/c load up a module of
its particular code when it is loaded needs to be added to the system -- be
a nice place to stick information unique to that plane that is dynamic in
nature -- can handle specialized panel displays, hud, etc
In
On Monday, 10 November 2003 22:40, Gene Buckle wrote:
Anyone know of a good C++ tutorial? :) Something tells me I'm gonna need
it. *g*
Not sure if you're just kidding or serious ...
There's plenty of free C++ info online but here are a couple of free books :
Bruce Eckel's Thinking in C++, 2nd
Anyone know of a good C++ tutorial? :) Something tells me I'm gonna need
it. *g*
Not sure if you're just kidding or serious ...
There's plenty of free C++ info online but here are a couple of free books :
Thanks Paul. I pay my mortage with Delphi, VB Pick. My C/C++ skills
are just
Gene Buckle writes:
Anyone know of a good C++ tutorial? :) Something tells me I'm gonna need
it. *g*
Not sure if you're just kidding or serious ...
There's plenty of free C++ info online but here are a couple of free books :
Thanks Paul. I pay my mortage with Delphi, VB Pick. My
On Monday, 10 November 2003 23:40, Gene Buckle wrote:
Thanks Paul. I pay my mortage with Delphi, VB Pick. My C/C++ skills
are just enough to be able to identify it on sight and begin running the
other way. :)
I also come from a Delphi background but find the switch very easy.
Both support
- Original Message -
From: Gene Buckle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
I think a dynamic shared library system that lets an a/c
Thanks Paul. I pay my mortage with Delphi, VB Pick. My C/C++ skills
are just enough to be able to identify it on sight and begin running the
other way. :)
Sounds like you need a varient of the following t-shirt (credit to
Mark Barry.)
I also come from a Delphi background but find the switch very easy.
Great! I'll help you write the server in Delphi. We can cross compile
with FPC. *laughs*
Why does C++ scare you?
Well scare is probably too strong a word. :) I'm just unfamiliar with
it. I can follow C ok, but the object
a nice place to stick information unique to that plane that is dynamic
in
nature -- can handle specialized panel displays, hud, etc
In that case, some kind of framework should be built so that the plug-in
could run on a seperate machine if needed.
um ?? for code/data local to
- Original Message -
From: Gene Buckle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
a nice place to stick information unique to that plane
um ?? for code/data local to an a/c instance ?? remoting that would slow
down the response time to realtime events
For virtual cockpits, you're correct. however, when you're working with a
physical cockpit, you need to have your displays on separate physical
hardware.
If the
- Original Message -
From: Gene Buckle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
um ?? for code/data local to an a/c instance ?? remoting
I'm just getting back into rooting around in the code and I don't yet have
a solid grasp on all the parts. AFAIK, the only native support for an
external module is OpenGC from what I've seen so far. I was referring the
creation of a universal method of obtaining data from the sim via
Gene Buckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
And in case someone didn't read my earlier post, I do not hold this opinion
myself, but I do think that a topical RFC should be posted before any war
related code is committed, even with a configuration flag. This _is_ a hot
button whether anyone
Gene Buckle wrote:
Paul Surgeon wrote:
Why does C++ scare you?
Well scare is probably too strong a word. :) I'm just unfamiliar
with it. I can follow C ok, but the object references tangle me for
some odd reason.
If C++ doesn't scare you, you have no business using it.
Sorry, but that
If C++ doesn't scare you, you have no business using it.
Sorry, but that was just too open. I had to take the shot. But
seriously, there's more truth in that statement than a sarcastic
retort like it deserves. The time to run screaming from a project is
the moment the architect declares
If you start a project and need OO features, either do it properly (in
Python or Objective-C), or do it the hard way with GLib/GObject.
Naw, Object Pascal is my first love. :)
I'd better shut up on the mailing list of a giant project written in
C++... I still admire you folks for getting it
Jonathan Richards writes:
What I value about FlightGear is that it attempts to *simulate* the
real world
and aviation in it. The landscapes and the airports are realistic, the
weather is (can be made) realistic, the celestial objects are realistic, the
flight dynamics themselves are
I would propose that the server be structured so that a purely
civilian/non-combat version could be run. I don't want it to be
possible for some idiot to come and blow me out of the sky when I'm
practicing ILS approaches in my C172 at my local airport.
I guess there ought to be an explicit
- Original Message -
From: Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would propose that the server be structured so that a purely
civilian/non-combat version could be run. I don't want it to be
possible for some idiot to come and blow me out of the sky when I'm
practicing ILS approaches
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
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
- Original Message -
From: Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 4:24 PM
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
John Barrett writes:
Would a --no-combat option
- Original Message -
From: Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
John Barrett writes:
Would a --no-combat option
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
- Original Message -
From: Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
On Sunday 09 November 2003 21:16, Curtis L. Olson wrote
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, John Barrett wrote:
Though actually -- a single master server could handle all the position
updates without that much trouble given the update limiter code and headless
(no opengl display) operation -- offload the airport and regional ATC to
stand alone apps that interface
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, John Barrett wrote:
If each client instance specified I'm only interested in events which
happen within 20deg of my current position (use a square around current
lat/lon offset by the range specified, rather than circular) -- should be
Yeah, it's certainly a much faster
- Original Message -
From: Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, John Barrett wrote:
If each client
John Barrett writes:
If each client instance specified I'm only interested in events which
happen within 20deg of my current position (use a square around current
lat/lon offset by the range specified, rather than circular) -- should be
very fast for the server to do that check before
- Original Message -
From: Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 6:28 PM
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
John Barrett writes:
If each client instance specified
On Sunday 09 November 2003 22:23, John Barrett wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
- 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
John Barrett writes:
Norman Vine writes
Please - remember FGFS is not a flat earth system
whatever works -- if the computation gets too intense, it can always be
handled periodically (every 60-120 seconds perhaps) and keep a list of
entities for which we are interested in their
Could you describe the --headless option (Phase 1 changes)?
Sounds a little like what I'm trying to get Flightgear to do.
/
/I was hoping to have multiple airplanes (each controlled by an individual program), each being updated
once per video render instead of having independent execution
- Original Message -
From: Michael Matkovic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 12:07 AM
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
Could you describe the --headless option (Phase 1 changes)?
Sounds a little like what I'm
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
I realize project goals evolve but . IMO this is an admirable
feature
Norman
On 11/6/03 at 1:36 AM John Barrett wrote:
3. Initial Radio Message set definition
a. Tower ATC messages
b. Regional ATC messages
c. Ground Traffic Control
There is current ongoing progress in this area within FlightGear. I
haven't quite got my head round what the multiplayer server
On Thursday 06 Nov 2003 9:10 am, Norman Vine wrote:
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
What I value about FlightGear is that it attempts to *simulate* the
On 11/6/03 at 11:32 AM Jonathan Richards wrote:
sky'? The spirit of simulation would rather suggest building in flight
planning, ground- and air-traffic control, and generally relieving the
loneliness. If I thought I could do it (and I might...) I'd begin to see
if
we can have FlightGear
Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW Historicaly FlightGear has resisted being a Military SIM.
actually resisted is not a strong enough word
I realize project goals evolve but . IMO this is an admirable
feature
I second that,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's
On Thursday 06 Nov 2003 1:05 pm, David Luff wrote:
The very very latest CVS (not the 0.9.3 release) can generate some
situation-relevant messages from the tower to the user - if you'd like to
participate in the ATC development then just shout, there's plenty to do!
David - I was so enthused
- Original Message -
From: David Luff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
On 11/6/03 at 1:36 AM John Barrett wrote:
3. Initial
- Original Message -
From: Jonathan Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree, though, that what is missing is other inhabitants of the
simulated
planet :) The biggest mismatch with reality is the absence of other air
traffic, or even ground movement, and I know that people have started to
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, John Barrett wrote:
Seriously -- I'm more interested in WWII dogfight style combat -- guns/wing
cannon, and dropped bombs only :) So we are really talking minimal changes
for that type of combat.
Plus it'd allow modelling of other interesting things - how about being
able
Plus it'd allow modelling of other interesting things - how about being
able to practice your fire fighting skills? (actually, a horrible thought
just occurred to me - imagine trying to model a helicopter with a water
tank swinging about under it :-)
That would be pretty cool. Just imagine
Jonathan Richards writes:
On Thursday 06 Nov 2003 1:05 pm, David Luff wrote:
The very very latest CVS (not the 0.9.3 release) can generate some
situation-relevant messages from the tower to the user - if you'd like to
participate in the ATC development then just shout, there's plenty to
- Original Message -
From: Gene Buckle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
Plus it'd allow modelling of other interesting things
That would be pretty cool. Just imagine the fun you could have with a 747
water bomber. :)
Something needs to be done about the terrain though - it's too clean.
g.
Call that phase 4: Extending terrain data for low level and ground level sim
Take a peek here for some great
On Thursday 06 Nov 2003 8:13 pm, David Luff wrote:
Jonathan Richards writes:
I loaded up all the /ATC/*.cxx files into KDevelop this morning to see if
I could understand how it all fits together, but rapidly got lost in the
detail. Have you got a paragraph or two to hand which describes
We have covered a LOT of territory the last couple of days, so I think we
are due for a summary to date:
Phase 1
1. Server implementation to be integrated with the current FG code
a. --fgspeer= protocol module with HUD updates
b. --fgsserv= protocol module and basic reflector server
69 matches
Mail list logo
