Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
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 such as bombs, bullets, [...] and collisions. You should keep collisions in mind in case you intend to run 'combat' and 'non-combat' on a single server (or on distributed and connected servers), Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
* [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 is not a strong enough word) 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? | | No, we do not currently support combat. Most of our developers | are primarily focused on civilian aviation. We aren't explicitly | excluding these features -- we just haven't had anyone who seriously | wanted to develop these areas. | | However, FlightGear does contain several military aircraft, albeit | without munitions. Doesn't sound like such a strong resistance. :- There is a *huge* differeance between having military aircraft in a 'flight' simulator and a 'combat' simulator. If you want to simulate combat please make it a separate project Nothing wrong with building atop of FGFS, and in fact FGFS tries to be accomodating in that respect. I wrote that FAQ entry after seeing several discussions about combat in FG. I never heard anyone say what you are saying Norman (ie. go away. we aren't going to do combat). I believe I also sent that entry to Curt before publishing it to make sure I wasn't off base. Now, there are a few people involved in FG that are very opposed to a combat framework, but there are an equal number of people that are very interested in adding it. The rest of us (including me) fall somewhere in the middle: if we don't have combat or if we do, I'm still going to enjoy FG. Having said that, I think the addition of combat capabilities should be done in a modular, non-intrusive way. I don't think we should force someone to create a fork of FG just so they can implement projectiles and a damage model. 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. ;-) -- Cameron Moore / The other day, I went to a tourist information booth and asked, \ \ Tell me about some of the people who were here last year./ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
- 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, and I went so far as to make the entire client/server code enabled/disabled by configure option, then, as added protection for those not interested in what I'm adding on, I added a new executable target to the Main makefile -- fgmp -- when you build, you get a stock FG binary, and if enabled, the multiplayer version that uses the client/server extensions. That should keep everyone happy who does not want a tainted binary, and allow easy performance/etc comparison between stock fgfs and fgmp ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
* [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 some :) I'm working up the protocol base classes at the moment, and I went so far as to make the entire client/server code enabled/disabled by configure option, then, as added protection for those not interested in what I'm adding on, I added a new executable target to the Main makefile -- fgmp -- when you build, you get a stock FG binary, and if enabled, the multiplayer version that uses the client/server extensions. That should keep everyone happy who does not want a tainted binary, and allow easy performance/etc comparison between stock fgfs and fgmp 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 resulting damage to objects. These are two separate problems, though one is a prerequisite of the other. -- Cameron Moore [ So what's the speed of dark? ] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
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 resulting damage to objects. These are two separate problems, though one is a prerequisite of the other. Indeed multiplayer, multipilot and even remote pilot capability has always been a desired capability, and AFAIK one of the primary motivators of FGFS being made 'network' aware. Speaking of which it's been awhile since I have checked up on the remote jpeg server capability. IMO It would be really neat if a 'web jockey' were to integrate the jpg server and the http interface into a single served page. When I was developing the thing I mucked around with a remote proxy server a couple of lines of python put that the http interface and the jpeg into frames so both were on the same page, this was pretty cool in that I could monitor/control FGFS running on my machine at home that was on a dialup from just about anywhere :-) cheers norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
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 (http://www.flightgear.org/Docs/FAQ.shtml#7.4): | 7.4 - Is there support for any military scenarios like dog | fighting or bomb dropping? | | No, we do not currently support combat. Most of our developers | are primarily focused on civilian aviation. We aren't explicitly | excluding these features -- we just haven't had anyone who seriously | wanted to develop these areas. | | However, FlightGear does contain several military aircraft, albeit | without munitions. Doesn't sound like such a strong resistance. :- There is a *huge* differeance between having military aircraft in a 'flight' simulator and a 'combat' simulator. If you want to simulate combat please make it a separate project Nothing wrong with building atop of FGFS, and in fact FGFS tries to be accomodating in that respect. Norman ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
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 whole thing would be a separate module (like WeatherCM) that can be compiled in or not, I'd not see much of a problem. Good thinking. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
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 that phrase :-) Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
- 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 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 (http://www.flightgear.org/Docs/FAQ.shtml#7.4): | 7.4 - Is there support for any military scenarios like dog | fighting or bomb dropping? | | No, we do not currently support combat. Most of our developers | are primarily focused on civilian aviation. We aren't explicitly | excluding these features -- we just haven't had anyone who seriously | wanted to develop these areas. | | However, FlightGear does contain several military aircraft, albeit | without munitions. Doesn't sound like such a strong resistance. :- And I''m getting serious !! ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
- 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 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 whole thing would be a separate module (like WeatherCM) that can be compiled in or not, I'd not see much of a problem. Good thinking. Erik 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. keyboard/joystick event bindings for weapons 2. FDM integration for disposable stores and expendables -- useful even for civil aviation sims -- what happens if an engine falls off the pylon on a 747 ?? :) 3. HUD overlay for text messaging, GUI for radio messages -- needed in any case for ATC simulations, adding text to speech would be a plus :) 4. client and server protocol modules (can be configured in or out independently) -- in fact, totally possible to have the build process do two binaries at output -- one with server code, one without 5. aircraft specification modifications for weapons stores and damage effects (if you get hit in a specific location, what gets damage and how can that effect plane performance) 6. balistics and incremental aircraft damage system (non-guided weapons... wing cannon and bombs, falling aircraft parts [getting back to the 747 that drops an engine :) ], falling aircraft :) ) did I miss anything ?? Some of it is relevant to any simulation, the rest can be handled as optional modules, or is so low impact that its not worth making it optional (event bindings for instance) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
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 specific interface is then derived from this (maybe a design pattern would surfice?), this would allow any type of DB to be used at your leisure. I am not sure about combat, but what I would love to see is the number of ground vehicles (taxing and on the runway) change depending on the time of day Does Flightgear have a plugin type system? If not would that make a nice feature to add? Combat items such as guns could be a plugin? Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
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. keyboard/joystick event bindings for weapons 2. FDM integration for disposable stores and expendables -- useful even for civil aviation sims -- what happens if an engine falls off the pylon on a 747 ?? :) 3. HUD overlay for text messaging, GUI for radio messages -- needed in any case for ATC simulations, adding text to speech would be a plus :) 4. client and server protocol modules (can be configured in or out independently) -- in fact, totally possible to have the build process do two binaries at output -- one with server code, one without 5. aircraft specification modifications for weapons stores and damage effects (if you get hit in a specific location, what gets damage and how can that effect plane performance) 6. balistics and incremental aircraft damage system (non-guided weapons... wing cannon and bombs, falling aircraft parts [getting back to the 747 that drops an engine :) ], falling aircraft :) ) All of these could be implemented without them being exposed to the user. No configure option needed IMHO. The only thing that needs a configuration option is the actual armament release code. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
