Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?
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 in my original post, I'm not a programmer so, unfortunately, I couldn't help in that regard. However, I'd be willing to help as an end-user/tester. Regards, Chris ..and, you are able to hire a Vatsim programmer to do the job for you, you then own the work because you hired someone to do it for you, therefore you can license your end product any darn way you please. Now, if you hired man signs that NDA after you hire him, chances are you will be bound by that NDA because the reasonable assumption will suggest he did it on your behalf to do the job you hired him to do. ..now, if you can find somebody who has already signed Vatsim's NDA, you are then able to hire them to do the job _without_ disclosing any Vatsim IP to you, it's all in how you, or your lawyer ;o) defines the job. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- Special Offer-- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE (a $49 USD value)! Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better price-free! Download using promo code Free_Logger_4_Dev2Dev. Offer expires February 28th, so secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY! http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsight-sfd2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?
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 projects, FlightGear attracts its developer crowd (some would call it community) by the features which are specific to OpenSource development in general: Free access to the source code, multiple people working more or less collaboratively on the same part/feature, shared responsibility and certainly a lot more. This is fundamentally different from the development model you'd be forced into after signing an NDA: The NDA would presumably make almost every flavour of collaboration and peer-review impossible and the respective developer would end up as the sole responsible person for interfacing a variety of different FlightGear versions on a colourful bouquet of different platforms. Doesn't sound too attractive Chris O'Neill wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but what VATSIM seems to be saying is that they don't want just anybody trying to connect to their network, hence the only approved clients policy, and in order to enforce that policy they want to be the only source for releasing the source code. As far as I can tell the we need to protect our sim network is void. If they really make this claim, I'd consider it as a specious argument. To put it into different words: I know of at least three distinct implementations of VATSIM network protocols which had been created without VATSIM's help by reverse engineering. Thus, if anyone is seriously interested in compromising their network, there are sufficient opportunities to do so. One of the three people who reverse-engineered VATSIM-protocols was saying in a joke that he suspected the main reason for VATSIM to keep their protocol secret was not to disclose how poorly designed it is :-) Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Special Offer-- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE (a $49 USD value)! Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better price-free! Download using promo code Free_Logger_4_Dev2Dev. Offer expires February 28th, so secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY! http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsight-sfd2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:56:41 + (UTC), Martin wrote in message ihor4p$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 different one and probably consist of just two simple parts: 1.) Like probably almost every other OpenSource projects, FlightGear attracts its developer crowd (some would call it community) by the features which are specific to OpenSource development in general: Free access to the source code, multiple people working more or less collaboratively on the same part/feature, shared responsibility and certainly a lot more. This is fundamentally different from the development model you'd be forced into after signing an NDA: The NDA would presumably make almost every flavour of collaboration and peer-review impossible and the respective developer would end up as the sole responsible person for interfacing a variety of different FlightGear versions on a colourful bouquet of different platforms. Doesn't sound too attractive ..and then there is the litigation risk, if you don't read nor sign any NDA, you can not violate that agreement. ..if you do sign a NDA, you risk having to hire an expensive contract law lawyer to try convince a pro-business judge that you the progressive pro-community hobbyist hacker did not do what that big business law team _claims_ you did. ..http://groklaw.net/ has _several_ such stories, where even Big Blue has been stuck for over 7 years in US courts. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- Special Offer-- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE (a $49 USD value)! Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better price-free! Download using promo code Free_Logger_4_Dev2Dev. Offer expires February 28th, so secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY! http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsight-sfd2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?
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 willing to help as an end-user/tester. Regards, Chris -- Special Offer-- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE (a $49 USD value)! Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better price-free! Download using promo code Free_Logger_4_Dev2Dev. Offer expires February 28th, so secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY! http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsight-sfd2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?
[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 -0300, Victhor wrote: 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. I'll get to this in a moment, but first... It seems it has been fixed so that it reports you as the aircraft you're currently using, but I'm not sure. Just to be clear, sb747 hasn't been fixed to report the proper aircraft but, rather, a workaround has been found whereby you file your flight plan via simroutes.com and then once that's done you file a blank flight plan with sb747. Since your simroutes.com flight plan contains the aircraft type, that's what is reported on VATSIM, Now, back to the whole licensing/NDA issue... IMHO, and with all due respect to those who might disagree, while the ideal would be that an FG--VATSIM broker (to use VATSIM's term) would be open source, I do not understand why this has to be mandatory? If VATSIM were saying that FG itself had to become closed-source for it to connect to their network, then I'd be in total agreement. However, that's NOT the case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what VATSIM seems to be saying is that they don't want just anybody trying to connect to their network, hence the only approved clients policy, and in order to enforce that policy they want to be the only source for releasing the source code. I'm not aware of them wanting to extract licensing fees (i.e. earn income) for access to the source code (right?), and it seems to me they're merely trying to protect the integrity of their network. Is that so wrong? What we have here is an opportunity to take FG to a whole new level, and I'd *really* hate to see that opportunity rejected out-of-hand over this issue. We say on one hand that FG is a serious flight simulation environment (as opposed to merely being a game) and, yet, when presented with the possibility of linking FG to a serious air traffic controlled online flying environment we immediately reject the idea because a client to connect to that environment would not be open source? IMHO, the FG multiplayer environment will *never* match the realism and professionalism of air traffic controlled online flying that VATSIM has achieved. Yes, we have a handful of MP ATC's (jomo, redneck, wookierabbit, and a few others), and those folks do a *fabulous* job. But they're just a handful, and those of us who are seriously flying under their direction are often overwhelmed by gamers who spawn into MP on the runways, ignore ATC directions, and otherwise disrupt (either accidentally or purposely) our efforts to mimick real-life flying under ATC control. By comparison VATSIM has *hundreds* of ATC's who must pass rigid certification requirements before they go to work on the network. VATSIM requires those who access the network to follow ATC directions, and failing to do so will get you booted from that network pretty quickly. It's possible on VATSIM to fly across North America, or even transatlantic, and do the whole flight (including clearance and ground control) under air traffic control the entire time, while being passed to multiple controllers in the process. I have listened to real-life ATC comms on liveatc.net and I have flown FG on VATSIM and, frankly, it's pretty hard to tell the difference between the two. So, while some of us may not like the idea of having to sign an NDA in order to develop an FG--VATSIM broker/client, the simple fact of the matter is this... those of us who want to use FlightGear to fly online in a realistic and professional air traffic controlled environment *can't* currently do that in MP (and, IMHO, likely never will be able to do it), but we *can* do it in VATSIM. In closing, the squawkgear/sb747 solution is an exceptional hack that does work, but if we *really* want to get serious about providing FG users with the capability of using FG as a serious flight simulation environment, then IMHO we should give this a serious look. Regards, Chris -- Special Offer-- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE (a $49 USD value)! Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better price-free! Download using promo code Free_Logger_4_Dev2Dev. Offer expires February 28th, so secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY! http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsight-sfd2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?
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 signs the appropriate NDA's and then builds an interface from vatsim to flightgear, then sure, that could be an external closed source application that bridges the communication gap between FlightGear and VATSIM. But here's the problem. Now anyone (good or evil) has a wide open, public, unsecured route into the vatsim network. The flightgear API's are open and you can inspect all the code and structures. So anyone could take the vatsim-flightgear interface and leverage it to interject any kind of nonsense into the vatsim network. This is exactly what vatsim is trying to avoid by protecting their communication protocols. As soon as they allow a translator to be written with an open/published/documented protocol at the other end ... this is the very next best thing for someone wanting to do mischief. Please notice: this isn't me being negative about vatsim, or being negative about the idea of a vatsim interface for flightgear. I'd personally love to have it available one way or another. But I'm trying to place myself in the perspective of what the vatsim folks would think. Hopefully I'm way wrong, but if we lay it all out for them open and honestly up front so we aren't trying to sneak something past them, what do you think they would say? FlightGear doesn't have a binary plug in system so it's not possible for someone to write a closed source plugin to implement the vatsim protocol. It would have to be done as an entirely open-source module within FlightGear, or as an entirely separate external application that communicates with flightgear through some network protocol. So all that said, here's one more thing to ponder. FlightGear is a volunteer driven project. The people that pitch in and do the work get to decide what they will work on and how they will do it. We can discuss vatsim back and forth all day long, but until a volunteer steps forward who's willing (and able) to build the vatsim interface to flightgear, and who is willing to sign all the vatsim nda's, and who is willing to do whatever discussion and negotiation and strategizing and design work that is required to make the system function satisfactorily from the perspective of both vatsim and flightgear ... until such a person emerges, really all we can do is talk about it theoretically. Best regards, Curt. On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Chris O'Neill wrote: [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 -0300, Victhor wrote: 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. I'll get to this in a moment, but first... It seems it has been fixed so that it reports you as the aircraft you're currently using, but I'm not sure. Just to be clear, sb747 hasn't been fixed to report the proper aircraft but, rather, a workaround has been found whereby you file your flight plan via simroutes.com and then once that's done you file a blank flight plan with sb747. Since your simroutes.com flight plan contains the aircraft type, that's what is reported on VATSIM, Now, back to the whole licensing/NDA issue... IMHO, and with all due respect to those who might disagree, while the ideal would be that an FG--VATSIM broker (to use VATSIM's term) would be open source, I do not understand why this has to be mandatory? If VATSIM were saying that FG itself had to become closed-source for it to connect to their network, then I'd be in total agreement. However, that's NOT the case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what VATSIM seems to be saying is that they don't want just anybody trying to connect to their network, hence the only approved clients policy, and in order to enforce that policy they want to be the only source for releasing the source code. I'm not aware of them wanting to extract licensing fees (i.e. earn income) for access to the source code (right?), and it seems to me they're merely trying to protect the integrity of their network. Is that so wrong? What we have here is an opportunity to take FG to a whole new level, and I'd *really* hate to see that opportunity rejected out-of-hand over this issue. We say on one hand that FG is a serious flight simulation environment (as opposed to merely being a game) and, yet, when presented with the possibility of
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?
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 side with any approved user name and password and connect to the VATSIM world. Users would be governed by the same rules for flight operations as defined by the VATSIM procedures and regulations. Intentionally violate the rules -- first offense; a warning, 2nd offense; banishment -- go play with the kiddies. Just as an aside, last year the MITRE corporation ( where I had the pleasure of a short stint from Northrop ) conducted a study on runway incursions ( see http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=78t=51419 ) using VATSIM and FSX. ATM I need to keep my calendar free for a possible contract to build a 737NG FTD that will be FAA certified a Jack 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 signs the appropriate NDA's and then builds an interface from vatsim to flightgear, then sure, that could be an external closed source application that bridges the communication gap between FlightGear and VATSIM. But here's the problem. Now anyone (good or evil) has a wide open, public, unsecured route into the vatsim network. The flightgear API's are open and you can inspect all the code and structures. So anyone could take the vatsim-flightgear interface and leverage it to interject any kind of nonsense into the vatsim network. This is exactly what vatsim is trying to avoid by protecting their communication protocols. As soon as they allow a translator to be written with an open/published/documented protocol at the other end ... this is the very next best thing for someone wanting to do mischief. Please notice: this isn't me being negative about vatsim, or being negative about the idea of a vatsim interface for flightgear. I'd personally love to have it available one way or another. But I'm trying to place myself in the perspective of what the vatsim folks would think. Hopefully I'm way wrong, but if we lay it all out for them open and honestly up front so we aren't trying to sneak something past them, what do you think they would say? FlightGear doesn't have a binary plug in system so it's not possible for someone to write a closed source plugin to implement the vatsim protocol. It would have to be done as an entirely open-source module within FlightGear, or as an entirely separate external application that communicates with flightgear through some network protocol. So all that said, here's one more thing to ponder. FlightGear is a volunteer driven project. The people that pitch in and do the work get to decide what they will work on and how they will do it. We can discuss vatsim back and forth all day long, but until a volunteer steps forward who's willing (and able) to build the vatsim interface to flightgear, and who is willing to sign all the vatsim nda's, and who is willing to do whatever discussion and negotiation and strategizing and design work that is required to make the system function satisfactorily from the perspective of both vatsim and flightgear ... until such a person emerges, really all we can do is talk about it theoretically. Best regards, Curt. On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Chris O'Neill wrote: [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 -0300, Victhor wrote: 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. I'll get to this in a moment, but first... It seems it has been fixed so that it reports you as the aircraft you're currently using, but I'm not sure. Just to be clear, sb747 hasn't been fixed to report the proper aircraft but, rather, a workaround has been found whereby you file your flight plan via simroutes.com and then once that's done you file a blank flight plan with sb747. Since your simroutes.com flight plan contains the aircraft type, that's what is reported on VATSIM, Now, back to the whole licensing/NDA issue... IMHO, and with all due respect to those who might disagree, while the ideal would be that an FG--VATSIM broker (to use VATSIM's term) would be open source, I do not understand why this has to be mandatory? If VATSIM
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?
NUTS!! was working on a draft and hit send by accident. to finish my comments. waiting on word for a proposal to build a 737NG FTD certified by FAA at Level 5. Should know within the next few weeks, hopefully. That wil wipe me out for the next six months, but can still find some time to get the ball rolling with the VATSIM folks. How about a show of hands? Is there enough interest and volunteers to organize a team to tackle the problem? I can provide a dedicated machine and IP address to host the server and possibly a T1 line. Jack Original Message Subject: Re: [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 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 signs the appropriate NDA's and then builds an interface from vatsim to flightgear, then sure, that could be an external "closed source" application that bridges the communication gap between FlightGear and VATSIM. But here's the problem. Now anyone (good or evil) has a wide open, public, unsecured route into the vatsim network. The flightgear API's are open and you can inspect all the code and structures. So anyone could take the vatsim-flightgear interface and leverage it to interject any kind of nonsense into the vatsim network. This is exactly what vatsim is trying to avoid by protecting their communication protocols. As soon as they allow a translator to be written with an open/published/documented protocol at the other end ... this is the very next best thing for someone wanting to do mischief. Please notice: this isn't me being negative about vatsim, or being negative about the idea of a vatsim interface for flightgear. I'd personally love to have it available one way or another. But I'm trying to place myself in the perspective of what the vatsim folks would think. Hopefully I'm way wrong, but if we lay it all out for them open and honestly up front so we aren't trying to sneak something past them, what do you think they would say? FlightGear doesn't have a binary plug in system so it's not possible for someone to write a closed source plugin to implement the vatsim protocol. It would have to be done as an entirely open-source module within FlightGear, or as an entirely separate external application that communicates with flightgear through some network protocol. So all that said, here's one more thing to ponder. FlightGear is a volunteer driven project. Thepeoplethat pitch in and do the work get to decide what they will work on and how they will do it. We can discuss vatsim back and forth all day long, but until a volunteer steps forward who's willing (and able) to build the vatsim interface to flightgear, and who is willing to sign all the vatsim nda's, and who is willing to do whatever discussion and negotiation and strategizing and design work that is required to make the system function satisfactorily from the perspective of both vatsim and flightgear ... until such a person emerges, really all we can do is talk about it theoretically. Best regards, Curt. On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Chris O'Neill wrote: [PREFACE: I'm a FG end-user who's not a programmer, nor am I anintellectual 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 -0300, Victhor wrote: 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.I'll get to this in a moment, but first... It seems it has been fixed so that it reports you as the aircraft you're currently using, but I'm not sure.Just to be clear, sb747 hasn't been "fixed" to report the properaircraft but, rather, a workaround has been found whereby you file yourflight plan via simroutes.com and then once that's done you file a blankflight plan with sb747. Since your simroutes.com flight plan containsthe aircraft type, that's what is reported on VATSIM,Now, back to the whole licensing/NDA issue...IMHO, and with all due respect to those who might disagree, while the"ideal" would be that an FG--VATSIM "broker" (to use VATSIM's term)would be open source, I do not understand why this has to be mandatory?If VATSIM were saying that FG itself had to become closed-source for itto connect to their network, then I'd be in total agreement. However,that's NOT the case.Correct me if I'm wron
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?
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 you as the aircraft you're currently using, but I'm not sure. Both(SB747 and SquawkGear) work under wine iirc. 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 of SquakBox (SB747) aren't - due to licensing issues with VATSIM. At least the author says he has promised VATSIM not to disclose the sources. What's worse, SB747 is no longer maintained. It works for now as it is, but has several drawbacks: apart from not being open source, it annoyingly always reports a 747 aircraft to VATSIM. So even if you flew an Airbus or a small Cessna on FlightGear - you'll show up as a 747 on VATSIM. And yes, SB747 is Windows only. People running normal Linux or some obscure platform (such as Macs :-b ) need to run the Windows software in a virtual machine - or use Wine. Both works. Yes, it'd be great if there was an open source FG adapter to VATSIM - it could also be a single utility then and a lot easier to install. But I guess that's not going to happen too soon. cheers, Thorsten -- Protect Your Site and Customers from Malware Attacks Learn about various malware tactics and how to avoid them. Understand malware threats, the impact they can have on your business, and how you can protect your company and customers by using code signing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Special Offer-- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE (a $49 USD value)! Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better price-free! Download using promo code Free_Logger_4_Dev2Dev. Offer expires February 28th, so secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY! http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsight-sfd2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?
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 Victhor victhor.fos...@gmail.com: 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 you as the aircraft you're currently using, but I'm not sure. Both(SB747 and SquawkGear) work under wine iirc. 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 of SquakBox (SB747) aren't - due to licensing issues with VATSIM. At least the author says he has promised VATSIM not to disclose the sources. What's worse, SB747 is no longer maintained. It works for now as it is, but has several drawbacks: apart from not being open source, it annoyingly always reports a 747 aircraft to VATSIM. So even if you flew an Airbus or a small Cessna on FlightGear - you'll show up as a 747 on VATSIM. And yes, SB747 is Windows only. People running normal Linux or some obscure platform (such as Macs :-b ) need to run the Windows software in a virtual machine - or use Wine. Both works. Yes, it'd be great if there was an open source FG adapter to VATSIM - it could also be a single utility then and a lot easier to install. But I guess that's not going to happen too soon. cheers, Thorsten -- Protect Your Site and Customers from Malware Attacks Learn about various malware tactics and how to avoid them. Understand malware threats, the impact they can have on your business, and how you can protect your company and customers by using code signing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Special Offer-- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE (a $49 USD value)! Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better price-free! Download using promo code Free_Logger_4_Dev2Dev. Offer expires February 28th, so secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY! http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsight-sfd2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Special Offer-- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE (a $49 USD value)! Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better price-free! Download using promo code Free_Logger_4_Dev2Dev. Offer expires February 28th, so secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY! http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsight-sfd2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Special Offer-- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE (a $49 USD value)! Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better price-free! Download using promo code Free_Logger_4_Dev2Dev. Offer expires February 28th, so secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY! http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsight-sfd2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?
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 requires NDA and plays silly corporate games instead of openly welcoming new arrivals. But that's just me. -- Csaba/Jester -- Special Offer-- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE (a $49 USD value)! Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better price-free! Download using promo code Free_Logger_4_Dev2Dev. Offer expires February 28th, so secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY! http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsight-sfd2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?
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 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. I doubt it has anything to do with that Csaba. AFAIK, their primary concern is with griefers ruining the network for others. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.simpits.org/geneb - The Me-109F/X Project ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.-- Special Offer-- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE (a $49 USD value)! Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better price-free! Download using promo code Free_Logger_4_Dev2Dev. Offer expires February 28th, so secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY! http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsight-sfd2d___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?
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 Vatsim network implemented by a developer who signed a NDA, and simultaneously it will implement an open public interface to FlightGear. Suddenly we have opened an public api translater for the vatsim network that anyone could exploit for ill. Better than hiding the API details (because some enterprising person could probably reverse engineer that pretty easily anyway by inspecting the network packets) would be to have some sort of encrypted/authenticated prototcol (similar to ssh). Then the protocol can be totally open, but without proper authentication you are unable to participate. But I'm guessing that vatsim won't be all that interested in redesigning their entire protocol and rewriting every plugin for every sim out there, just because I had a good idea. ;-) Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- Special Offer-- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE (a $49 USD value)! Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better price-free! Download using promo code Free_Logger_4_Dev2Dev. Offer expires February 28th, so secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY! http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsight-sfd2d___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?
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 - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Special Offer-- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE (a $49 USD value)! Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better price-free! Download using promo code Free_Logger_4_Dev2Dev. Offer expires February 28th, so secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY! http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsight-sfd2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?
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 support?From: ThorstenB bre...@gmail.comDate: Sat, January 15, 2011 9:20 amTo: FlightGear developers discussionsflightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net 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 my full scale 747 sim and Linux. Would like to include a few words on this feature. Could someone point me to the relevant code or any writeups or discussions on the topicThis is not a feature of FlightGear itself, but a separate utility/setup that makes the connection (via SquawkGear and SquawkBox - the latter provides the actual (and approved) VATSIM interface). I've also tested it - and, yes, indeed it works.To get started:http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/SquawkGear -- Protect Your Site and Customers from Malware Attacks Learn about various malware tactics and how to avoid them. Understand malware threats, the impact they can have on your business, and how you can protect your company and customers by using code signing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?
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 of SquakBox (SB747) aren't - due to licensing issues with VATSIM. At least the author says he has promised VATSIM not to disclose the sources. What's worse, SB747 is no longer maintained. It works for now as it is, but has several drawbacks: apart from not being open source, it annoyingly always reports a 747 aircraft to VATSIM. So even if you flew an Airbus or a small Cessna on FlightGear - you'll show up as a 747 on VATSIM. And yes, SB747 is Windows only. People running normal Linux or some obscure platform (such as Macs :-b ) need to run the Windows software in a virtual machine - or use Wine. Both works. Yes, it'd be great if there was an open source FG adapter to VATSIM - it could also be a single utility then and a lot easier to install. But I guess that's not going to happen too soon. cheers, Thorsten -- Protect Your Site and Customers from Malware Attacks Learn about various malware tactics and how to avoid them. Understand malware threats, the impact they can have on your business, and how you can protect your company and customers by using code signing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?
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 my full scale 747 sim and Linux. Would like to include a few words on this feature. Could someone point me to the relevant code or any writeups or discussions on the topic This is not a feature of FlightGear itself, but a separate utility/setup that makes the connection (via SquawkGear and SquawkBox - the latter provides the actual (and approved) VATSIM interface). I've also tested it - and, yes, indeed it works. To get started: http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/SquawkGear cheers, Thorsten -- Protect Your Site and Customers from Malware Attacks Learn about various malware tactics and how to avoid them. Understand malware threats, the impact they can have on your business, and how you can protect your company and customers by using code signing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?
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@lists.sourceforge.net 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 my full scale 747 sim and Linux. Would like to include a few words on this feature. Could someone point me to the relevant code or any writeups or discussions on the topicThis is not a feature of FlightGear itself, but a separate utility/setup that makes the connection (via SquawkGear and SquawkBox - the latter provides the actual (and approved) VATSIM interface). I've also tested it - and, yes, indeed it works.To get started:http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/SquawkGearcheers,Thorsten --Protect Your Site and Customers from Malware AttacksLearn about various malware tactics and how to avoid them. Understand malware threats, the impact they can have on your business, and how you can protect your company and customers by using code signing.http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___Flightgear-devel mailing listFlightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.nethttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Protect Your Site and Customers from Malware Attacks Learn about various malware tactics and how to avoid them. Understand malware threats, the impact they can have on your business, and how you can protect your company and customers by using code signing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM connectivity redux
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 be fully open. Would you mind sharing the current state of development with us ? Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Come build with us! The BlackBerryreg; Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9#45;12, 2009. Register now#33; http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM connectivity redux
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, Sep 29, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Martin Spott martin.sp...@mgras.netwrote: 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 be fully open. Would you mind sharing the current state of development with us ? Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Come build with us! The BlackBerryreg; Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9#45;12, 2009. Register now#33; http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM connectivity redux
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 Services but I work pretty closely with our VP of Development, Ross Carlson, who I chatted with before sending this message. The news about ACES has drummed up renewed interest in VATSIM for alternative pilot client solutions; as you're probably aware we have a quite successful implementation with X-Plane. There are some limitations due to our network protocol (FSD)'s lackings (of which a newer version has been under development for awhile now) but on the whole it really functions quite well. I know there have been many concerns raised in the past in the FG community about working with a closed-source, NDA-requiring entity. I'd like to throw a little fuel on the fire, if I may, and also put forth a couple ideas I had of how we can work together. 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 be fully open. Second, you should know that while VATSIM does at the moment require developer NDA to gain access to the FSD specifications, I did have a couple thoughts on how FG VATSIM could potentially coexist. One model that has been proposed before is the proxy server model; that would certainly be a possibility. Another model that occurred to me is by creating a stand-alone application that is closed-source and serves as the FlightGear/VATSIM client. By remaining closed-source it would fulfill VATSIM's requirements. How, then, would it communicate with FG? This you guys will know better than I as I'm not familiar with all the interprocess communication options you have available, but one thought is that you could open a TCP/IP socket and pass messages back and forth with the standalone client. Certainly I understand that you as developers of FG will work on features that you find interesting first (VATSIM, as an all-volunteer organization, is much the same way), and for some the mere concept of signing a NDA and/or working on a closed-source project is unacceptable. That's fine; we have no problems with that viewpoint and I don't need reminding of why you feel that way. I am an active open-source developer myself on several projects and completely understand the reasonings of those who might feel this way. However, if there are developers within the FG community who would be interested in working on a project like this, we at VATSIM would be quite keen to participate and I think that you would see a greatly increased visibility for your project as we would be able to heavily promote FlightGear within VATSIM. Participating in VATSIM is always completely free of charge, and indeed it is possible to act as a controller without anything except a computer and internet connection, but as a pilot you must purchase a commercial flightsim. If a client was created for FlightGear, we (and you) could and would promote it as the completely no-cost way to enjoy online flying with real people providing air traffic control via real world procedures. I'd be happy to answer any questions or concerns you might have, on- or off-list, as best as I can. Hi Tim, Sorry to quote your whole message ... chalk it up to laziness. :-) As I read through your message a few thoughts occurred to me. First, there is a large variety of opinions represented here on our developers list, and we have a few really die hard open-source folks ... give me open-source or give me death ... But I think the overwhelming majority of FlightGear developers and users are pretty pragmatic. We certainly honor, value, promote, and vigorously protect the GPL nature of FlightGear, but we realize that there are multiple ways to get through life. There's a certain art (probably which none of us have really mastered) :-) of filtering through the list noise and focusing in on the important responses, ignoring the flame bait, and giving people a little slack if they respond with too much haste, or misunderstand the original questions. One idea came to me, and I haven't fully thought through all it's implications, but let me present it here for discussion. What if we (meaning a vatsim developer with protocol access and flightgear developers as consultants) develop a utility that to FlightGear looks like a standard flightgear multiplayer server. This would run on a user's local machine, and their local copy of FlightGear would connect to it like any other multiplayer server. This utility would be closed source, and it would know how to speak the vatsim protocol. So like you say, it would be a bridge between the local copy of FlightGear and the vatsim network. I like
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM connectivity redux
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 client takes the MP data transmitted by the user's sim, translates it to FSD, and sends it out to the network. In recent versions of FS we have been able to automate and hide this for the user's ease of use - the MP session is automatically created, joined to by the client, etc. The instructions for connecting to VATSIM with FS2000 were quite long and difficult; in FS2004 FSX, it's really very easy for the user. 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 think it would come down to whichever is less heavy lifting. One other potential complication you made me think of is that at the moment both MSFS XP can run their client as what MSFS terms a module, meaning a window inside the sim itself, or as a secondary application. I don't know if FG has the ability to do this; certainly it would be nice if possible, but I don't want it to be thought of as a deal-breaker. Good suggestions and a good way to kick off the dialogue. Tim On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Curtis Olson curtol...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Tim, Sorry to quote your whole message ... chalk it up to laziness. :-) As I read through your message a few thoughts occurred to me. First, there is a large variety of opinions represented here on our developers list, and we have a few really die hard open-source folks ... give me open-source or give me death ... But I think the overwhelming majority of FlightGear developers and users are pretty pragmatic. We certainly honor, value, promote, and vigorously protect the GPL nature of FlightGear, but we realize that there are multiple ways to get through life. There's a certain art (probably which none of us have really mastered) :-) of filtering through the list noise and focusing in on the important responses, ignoring the flame bait, and giving people a little slack if they respond with too much haste, or misunderstand the original questions. One idea came to me, and I haven't fully thought through all it's implications, but let me present it here for discussion. What if we (meaning a vatsim developer with protocol access and flightgear developers as consultants) develop a utility that to FlightGear looks like a standard flightgear multiplayer server. This would run on a user's local machine, and their local copy of FlightGear would connect to it like any other multiplayer server. This utility would be closed source, and it would know how to speak the vatsim protocol. So like you say, it would be a bridge between the local copy of FlightGear and the vatsim network. I like this because we wouldn't necessarily need to change anything within the FlightGear source code, and we would automatically support current and past versions of FlightGear. There would need to be some dancing in terms of the FlightGear mutiplayer protocol. Certainly you could reimpliment a functional interface, but it might save you time if you could borrow some code from the FlightGear multiplayer server. That could only happen with express permission of the authors of that particular code. Some here may argue vigorously against this, but I think a lot of people would be pretty pragmatic about this ... assuming you had full support from the multiplayer server author(s) and it would be their decision to make. Otherwise you'd have to look at the protocol specification and rewrite your own FlightGear compatible interface which probably isn't horribly difficult, so maybe that would be the way to go and you wouldn't risk offending anyone. But if you do that you need to be pretty careful not to look at our multiplayer server code lest it be too tempting to copy from it. I do think it's worth pushing towards vatsim compatibility and I appreciate your persistence as we try to find a way through that satisfies all the different constraints. Best regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/http://baron.flightgear.org/%7Ecurt/ -- Create and Deploy Rich Internet Apps outside the browser with Adobe(R)AIR(TM) software. With Adobe AIR, Ajax developers can use existing skills and code to build responsive, highly engaging applications that combine the power of local resources and data with the reach of the web. Download the Adobe AIR SDK and Ajax docs to start building applications today- http://p.sf.net/sfu/adobe-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM connectivity redux
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 think it would come down to whichever is less heavy lifting. FlightGear itself does not work as a server. FlightGear is a multi player client only, the server is separate, few people have or run FG servers, there is no hosting a MP game, you just connect to one of the existing MP servers along with everybody else. Information about the server system can be found here: http://fgms.sourceforge.net/ Here's a map showing who is on the current public servers (they are all interconnected): http://mpmap02.flightgear.org/ If you were to create a VATSIM FlightGear server (and host it of course) then you'd be well on the way to having an really workable solution. --- James Sleeman ..this is the _best_ way to do it. :o) ..legally, if you use and modify your fork of fgms, but keep in in-house and never distribute it, only use it in-house to provide a web service, the GPL becomes irrelevant because you are in full compliance with copyright law. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- Create and Deploy Rich Internet Apps outside the browser with Adobe(R)AIR(TM) software. With Adobe AIR, Ajax developers can use existing skills and code to build responsive, highly engaging applications that combine the power of local resources and data with the reach of the web. Download the Adobe AIR SDK and Ajax docs to start building applications today-http://p.sf.net/sfu/adobe-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 the way it _is_, whether anyone thinks that's good or bad. The issue of getting FG to work with C/S software, such as vatsim, doesn't have to compromise FG's integrity or leave it open to challenges. ..we certainly better not, and as long as we keep our eyes 'n minds open, we should able to remain squeaky clean. There's no restriction within the GPL of exchanging data between O/S and C/S s/w, and a good job too because all the firmware in your h/w is going to be C/S. ..correct, those restrictions are usually on the C/S side and in their contracts, and litigators usually allege some complex and spicy form of breach of contracts. The only real issue I see here is who does the work and how they feel about it. ..feelings protects _nothing_. Action on it is a requirement. Ask any woman. ;o) I've top-posted because I guess I'm summarising :) ...and hey - it's summer :) ..aye. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 try and carry on with that once I have X-Plane running again (actually, it's the OpenGL acceleration that currently isn't working on my computer, thanks to ATI being a year behind Linux and Xorg development). ..you've probably heard drop ATI windroid driver and use Xorg's ati|radeon before. Very recent video card? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 checking while you wrote this, chk this moving target again. ;o) Wait, my computer at work has an X300 and there is 3D in Xorg for that, but it crashes after a few minutes even when not using any 3D graphics at all, so I disabled it. But there is hope at least. I've used ATI for a long time now, and I know that the Xorg driver is much better, but in this case I just haven't got a choice (yet). ..run Debian Sid, xorg 7.0.20 can see X850 and 7.0.22 oughtta do acc. 3d on your X600. Which X600?, 7.0.20 logs trying 3 different ones. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 reasons why I did most of my flying and controlling in IVAO. There were about 400 users online during the evenings on IVAO last time I used the network. Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 our better scenery. Who's up for that task? That's a current problem between MSFS and X-Plane as well, and I'm told that it's a shortcoming of the VATSIM protocol, which doesn't define the reference point to be used. 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 landcover schema is WGS84 and I assume the SRTM elevation data is as well - did I miss something ? Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 landcover schema is WGS84 and I assume the SRTM elevation data is as well - did I miss something ? The issue is that the specific elevation of a specific point on the earth can be different between sims. Consider Sim A that flattens airports to they are a single consistant elevation across the entire airport surface. Now contrast that with Sim B that lets airport surfaces generally follow the lay of the land so that the runways have realistic humps and depressions as you look down their length. Now, when an aircraft is at ground level in Sim A, it won't be exactly at ground level in Sim B. Sim C might have a different idea of the exact ground level across the surface of an airport. Now if all of these simulators participate in a multiplayer environment, aircraft taxiing along the ground in one sim, will probably always be too high or two low in the other two sims. One resolution is to force all simulators to use the exact same scenery model. Another possible solution would be to transmit height above ground. But this could be very computationally intensive to resolve into an actual altitude for the clients and some sims may not have that capability. Also, what happens if the reference point on the 747 in Sim A is a different place that the 747 in Sim B? 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 to cost us computationally if there are many aircraft to adjust, but it's something we could do if we wanted to. Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 Europe then IVAO is normally a lot more active during the evenings than VATSIM - one of the reasons why I did most of my flying and controlling in IVAO. There were about 400 users online during the evenings on IVAO last time I used the network. Last time I checked (January?), there was barely an ATC online in the evenings in Europe, so I chose VATSIM instead. Today, VATSIM seems to be just about as well-populated in Europe as it is in the US. Andras ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 reports it, I have yet to test it), but the manpage included in the Debian/sid package still says it doesn't, and that's what I checked (I hadn't actually downloaded 7.0.20 onto the computer in question until you posted this). Great news anyway. Let's hope it works better than on the 9550 at work (not an X300 as I posted earlier, I forgot that I changed the hardware recently). Andras ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 to cost us computationally if there are many aircraft to adjust, but it's something we could do if we wanted to. Just an idea for an algorithm: take all aircraft within 1nm that have a GS less than, say, 25kt. Apart from some aerobatic planes, that will only include planes on the apron at your airport. Now, for each of these, calculate a vertical offset precisely once, then use that offset throughout the rest of the session to correct the position of that aircraft. That isn't too computationally intensive, or is it? This still doesn't take into account scenery discrepancies, unfortunately. Andras ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 developing software isn't about proselytising but making something work. I figure that vatsim would be happy to be able to distribute a suitable interface client but aren't prepared to finance the development of one. If I had current C++ skills, instead of obsolete COBOL FORTRAN experience, I figure the easiest way to solve this would be to write an interface client (a discrete userland prog that could talk to their servers but also communicate with FG though it's existing IO) under their conditions, and give it to vatsim for them to distribute, and if it were taken up and used, further maintain. LeeE On Tuesday 13 June 2006 15:20, GWMobile wrote: Way back on compuserv forums when I first posted the idea of multiple people working together to build an open flight sim along the lines of linux I never expected there would be talk of rolling that into some sim that is proprietary in any way. Build it and they will come. Vatsim will convert to you if make an open source flying network. You shouldn't think of compromising open source one single inch. On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 9:13 am, Arnt Karlsen wrote: 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 try and carry on with that once I have X-Plane running again (actually, it's the OpenGL acceleration that currently isn't working on my computer, thanks to ATI being a year behind Linux and Xorg development). ..you've probably heard drop ATI windroid driver and use Xorg's ati|radeon before. Very recent video card? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-deve l Bush's family and their Saudi partners make higher profits by preventing Saddam's huge Iraqi oil reserves from ever being sold. They'll Enron the world - George Watson 2001 For Hurricanes www.globalboiling.com For solar wind and earthquakes www.electricquakes.com Typos caused by two inch mobile phone keyboard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 to be very functional... Are you using www.ivao.org or www.ivao.aero? There was a major disagreement in the managment (one guy wanted to run the show his way against everyone elses wishes and tried to hijack the website and system) and so www.ivao.aero was created and everyone moved across to it. www.ivao.org is the old hijacked system Last time I checked (January?), there was barely an ATC online in the evenings in Europe, so I chose VATSIM instead. Today, VATSIM seems to be just about as well-populated in Europe as it is in the US. I checked a couple of hours ago and there were 507 users online (ATC + pilots). http://network.ivao.aero/ Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 beginning, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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, notwithstanding possible issues with terrain differences. i *know* that the x-plane community is desperate for an easy to use multi-player system. i was pleased as punch to find the community and centralized server that the flightgear project is currently offering. and who knows, maybe even bringing an MSFS integration, which could then quite possibly turn the tables on where the action is and who owns the bulk of the multiplayer flight sim community. 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 try and carry on with that once I have X-Plane running again (actually, it's the OpenGL acceleration that currently isn't working on my computer, thanks to ATI being a year behind Linux and Xorg development). let me know if you need help with that. i have 8.40 working with an ATI card, though i had to make some tweaks to get it to work, but it does work. Andras Tony -- X-SA user ? 0.5.1 is out ! XData 0.1 for X-SA is out ! http://x-plane.dsrts.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 by any reference point, as suspected in the beginning, is this an issue of having a reference point, or is it an issue of knowing how *your* simulation is non-standard from an agreed upon standard, and having the simulation specific client to the open MP server do translations of inbound/outbound data as required. Martin. Tony -- X-SA user ? 0.5.1 is out ! XData 0.1 for X-SA is out ! http://x-plane.dsrts.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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. You're right, the latest version does seem to do 3D on my card (at least glxinfo reports it, I have yet to test it), but the manpage included in the Debian/sid package still says it doesn't, and that's what I checked (I hadn't ..ah, docs. ;o) actually downloaded 7.0.20 ..you don't. Do the aptitude upgrade dance to get 7.0.22 or whatever it is when you read this. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 idiot stunts like signing away your rights in contracts such as EULA's or NDA, where that A is a synonym of the legal term contract, a well known litigation bait. What sort of percentage of people who develop Open Source software would you guess also have a paid job developing proprietary or commercial custom software? Anyone working on proprietary commercial custom software will be working, in effect if not explicitly, under an NDA. This doesn't stop them from working on O/S stuff as well, providing that the Closed Source stuff isn't fed in to the O/S stuff. The terms on an NDA could be draconian but then take-up is going to be low, so a reasonable NDA is going to be more successful. All those people who get paid for s/w development and who also work on O/S projects seem to get by ok, without too many conflicts of interest. 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 developing software isn't about proselytising but making something work. ..it is also a multi-billion business for people like Microsoft and IBM. You never been paid for making something work? ;) I figure that vatsim would be happy to be able to distribute a suitable interface client but aren't prepared to finance the development of one. ..then they are not keen enough. They don't have to be keen. They've done what _they_ wanted - they just haven't done what _we_ want. If I had current C++ skills, instead of obsolete COBOL FORTRAN experience, ..who says this interface cannot be done in one of these 2 lingos? A Cobol or Fortran white box would stand out _prominently_, from the common C 'n C++ code, especially in court. Heh :) COBOL might not be bad at handling comms, now that I think about it - defining and manipulating record types has never been so much fun. I figure the easiest way to solve this would be to write an interface client (a discrete userland prog that could talk to their servers but also communicate with FG though it's existing IO) under their conditions, and give it to vatsim for them to distribute, and if it were taken up and used, further maintain. ...which brings me back here :) LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 created in different ways, probably even from different elevation data so I think Curt's assumption is very likely to be true, well, it is possibly true that a given lat/lon might have a different elevations between the two sims, because of at least two reasons 1) different world models, and 2) different terrain rendering. in either case though, each sim will know its own AGL, based on its own world and terrain, ... and i think AGL is unambigous ? by sending a lat/lon/AGL to the other peers, it seems to me that it can then be left up to each receiving client to place the rendition of the remote aircraft at an AGL, in _its_ terrain/world model, at the same AGL ? and answering my own question, i know that x-plane _cant_ currently do this, because currently, you cant query the simulation to find the terrain height at a given lat/lon, you can only query the sim to find out what your _own_ AGL is. but this is probably solvable on the x-plane side by implementing some code to query the terrain data installed, so that an interpretation of what a remote AGL means in the local context. not sure how this might work on the FG side, though i thought i saw some code in the code base that made it appear like it is possible to query height of terrain, assuming the tile is loaded ... Martin. Tony -- X-SA user ? 0.5.1 is out ! XData 0.1 for X-SA is out ! http://x-plane.dsrts.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 FG working with closed source/proprietary software? ..usually this is done by idiot stunts like signing away your rights in contracts such as EULA's or NDA, where that A is a synonym of the legal term contract, a well known litigation bait. What sort of percentage of people who develop Open Source software would you guess also have a paid job developing proprietary or commercial custom software? ..yes, much too high, here we have a litigation trap. Anyone working on proprietary commercial custom software will be working, in effect if not explicitly, under an NDA. This doesn't stop them from working on O/S stuff as well, providing that the Closed Source stuff isn't fed in to the O/S stuff. ..all it takes to litigate, is money and allegations. The terms on an NDA could be draconian but then take-up is going to be low, so a reasonable NDA is going to be more successful. ..agreed, and they are much harder to defend against. All those people who get paid for s/w development and who also work on O/S projects seem to get by ok, without too many conflicts of interest. ..and precisely because everybody are being reasonable. Not good enough for tSCOG vs IBM (chk GrokLaw) in the short term, but IBM can afford shooing Nazgul on them in the short term and will profit from it in the long term. 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 developing software isn't about proselytising but making something work. ..it is also a multi-billion business for people like Microsoft and IBM. You never been paid for making something work? ;) ..that's easy when everybody are reasonable. ;o) Our problem is that's not good enough, only squeaky clean under the GPL, will do. I figure that vatsim would be happy to be able to distribute a suitable interface client but aren't prepared to finance the development of one. ..then they are not keen enough. They don't have to be keen. ..nor do we. They've done what _they_ wanted - they just haven't done what _we_ want. ..we have many more alternatives, and I'm tossing bait on AirVenture too, that's one million people, give or take a few hundred thousand, 10,000 of them fly their own kite there. If I had current C++ skills, instead of obsolete COBOL FORTRAN experience, ..who says this interface cannot be done in one of these 2 lingos? A Cobol or Fortran white box would stand out _prominently_, from the common C 'n C++ code, especially in court. Heh :) COBOL might not be bad at handling comms, now that I think about it - defining and manipulating record types has never been so much fun. ..see? ;o) I figure the easiest way to solve this would be to write an interface client (a discrete userland prog that could talk to their servers but also communicate with FG though it's existing IO) under their conditions, and give it to vatsim for them to distribute, and if it were taken up and used, further maintain. ...which brings me back here :) ..no, either GPL, LGPL it, or toss it into the public domain. Any decent business will pay for SW that they want. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 philosophically). *CHeers* Ben Justin Smithies wrote: Is anyone working on a plugin / client to enable us FG users to use the vatsim network with voice too ? I myself can't find anything at all , maybe some of us could get together and start such a project ? Regards, Justin Smithies ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Scenery Home Page: http://scenery.x-plane.com/ Scenery blog: http://xplanescenery.blogspot.com/ Plugin SDK: http://www.xsquawkbox.net/xpsdk/ Scenery mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Developer mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 that's OK with you, let me know. Best regards, Lefteris Kalamaras : Regards, Justin Smithies On Monday 12 June 2006 15:49, bsupnik wrote: 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 philosophically). *CHeers* Ben Justin Smithies wrote: Is anyone working on a plugin / client to enable us FG users to use the vatsim network with voice too ? I myself can't find anything at all , maybe some of us could get together and start such a project ? Regards, Justin Smithies ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 VATSIM interface to M$F$, at least as far I've seen it, consists of a set of multiple small utilities, I think there are at least three of them: One that connects to M$F$, one that connects the MP channel to VATSIM, one that connects the voice channel to VASTIM. The problem with these tools: There are different versions each, version/communication incompatibilities are likely to happen, you have to start them in the right order and if it doesn't work it's not necessarily your fault :-) Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 ... http://news.com.com/Blizzard+wins+lawsuit+on+video+game+hacking/2100-1047_3-5845905.html is VATSIM gonna sue flightgear.org for reverse engineeing a *protocol* ? in this case, it certainly isn't an issue of preventing piracy. Tony -- X-SA user ? 0.5.1 is out ! XData 0.1 for X-SA is out ! http://x-plane.dsrts.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 NDA - which therefore gives them a handle to control who'll implement the protocol. Heh! Given that they didn't change their protocol over the years, I know what is meant by braindead. Once upon a time I worked on a KDE port of ProController, their radar application at that time. I got the protocol specs _without_ signing an NDA. Their network chief was not amused - to say the least - as he found out about our (we were already two at the time) client being used on their network. At least that's what he said. They seemed to have structural problems at the time and it might not have fit his plan to see an open-sourced tool implementing the protocol. BTW: Their server-software used to be open-source as well and as far as I can see, it has vanished... When they switched to the new radar client, I tried to keep up, but with the team at that time (not their head, Julian Smart, but instead those who wanted to work at it then) no cooperation was possible and my time is valuable. Cheers, Ralf ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 ... http://news.com.com/Blizzard+wins+lawsuit+on+video+game+hacking/2100-1047_3-5845905.html is VATSIM gonna sue flightgear.org for reverse engineeing a *protocol*? ..with the usual GrokLaw disclaimers: This here is legal: The defendants in the case, Ross Combs and Rob Crittenden, reverse-engineered the Blizzard protocol using tools like tcpdump to listen to the software's communications with a game server. Eventually, their bnetd project let Blizzard games connect with unofficial servers, yielding benefits like faster response times. ..if you do _not_ pull idiot stunts like this one here: The 8th Circuit also cited a contractual agreement that Combs and Crittenden OK'd when installing Blizzard software. That agreement prohibits reverse-engineering. in this case, it certainly isn't an issue of preventing piracy. ..correct, this case was about enforcing a contract, that agreement. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 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 of these bad guys out there might compromise our servers if the protocol gets published) or do they really have to fear something if some third party implements their protocol ? Anyway, if they don't want FlightGear users to participate does anyone have an idea if the FlightProject network still is supported by an active community ? http://www.flightproject.net/ Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 , Linux Mac or develop our own. It would save heaps of legal issues . Ok it would maybe need some fine tuning but we're all good at that here :) Justin Smithies On Monday 12 June 2006 19:06, Martin Spott wrote: 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 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 of these bad guys out there might compromise our servers if the protocol gets published) or do they really have to fear something if some third party implements their protocol ? Anyway, if they don't want FlightGear users to participate does anyone have an idea if the FlightProject network still is supported by an active community ? http://www.flightproject.net/ Cheers, Martin. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 of these bad guys out there might compromise our servers if the protocol gets published) or do they really have to fear something if some third party implements their protocol ? I think it's just a case of lazy developers thinking that security via obscurity is a viable route. It's a Micro$oft mentality that rubs off on people. Writing a secure protocol requires lots of work - it's easier to just do what's required and try hide the security holes. The open source mentality is very foreign concept to most Windows users. Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 it clear that you aren't speaking on behalf of the flightgear project as a whole. 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 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 to share the load with someone else ? - Most important, who of the OpenSource developers likes to take the risk of getting sued for license infringement because VATSIM might claim he could have transferred source code from the closed source interface to FlightGear ? Anyone ? Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 be closed source? Or just non-GPL? My assumption is that all the closed source vatsim magic happens in a proprietary library? We would link our application to this library. Am I wrong on this? Our application may not then be licensable under the gpl, but we could still make our portion of the code open and available. - 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 to share the load with someone else ? Hmmm, this is dependent on the answer to your first point. Does the vatsim app have to be closed source, or is the vatsim app that we/someone creates simply an app that has to link to a non-gpl, proprietary library? - Most important, who of the OpenSource developers likes to take the risk of getting sued for license infringement because VATSIM might claim he could have transferred source code from the closed source interface to FlightGear ? Well I think it's clear that the vatsim folks are more than happy to work with us if we are willing to meet them on their terms. If we develop a friendly cooperative relationship with them instead of an adversarial relationship, and if we follow their procedures and guidelines, why would there be a risk of being sued? Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 to share the load with someone else ? Hmmm, this is dependent on the answer to your first point. Does the vatsim app have to be closed source, or is the vatsim app that we/someone creates simply an app that has to link to a non-gpl, proprietary library? To my understanding the library is closed source and you can attach anything you like to it - just let us assume the best scenario we can get. Still somebody who signed the NDA has to port the library to and debug on different platform/compiler-setups - most of which he won't have access to! This definitely will be a tough ride in the world of portable OpenSource flight simulation ;-)) Well I think it's clear that the vatsim folks are more than happy to work with us if we are willing to meet them on their terms. If we develop a friendly cooperative relationship with them instead of an adversarial relationship, and if we follow their procedures and guidelines, why would there be a risk of being sued? Who kows ? These guys expect you to sign an NDA just to use an interface library at no cost. As long as this situation stands I personally would be pretty sceptical because I fear they have something to hide or I have to fear that they might react in a senseless way. Well, I don't _have_ to use this library :-) Have a nice day, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 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 be closed source? Or just non-GPL? My assumption is that all the closed source vatsim magic happens in a proprietary library? ..this is the story we are being told, AFAIUI. We would link our application to this library. Am I wrong on this? Our application may not then be licensable under the gpl, but we could still make our portion of the code open and available. ..only one problem: Would any of us need to sign their NDA and risk litigation? They may be nice now, but bad guys can easily grind them flat in court, to get at us. At Groklaw, we have seen at least 2 Canopy people die in suspect suicidings, I'm guessing because they learned something important. Just how powerful the GPL and copyright law is, is best shown in how the GPL moots such suicide schemes for people like us, Samba.org, Red Hat, IBM, who all hides under the GPL. - 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 to share the load with someone else ? ..maybe Vatsim staff? If they hire somebody to write it under the GPL, they will own it too, and get street credibility here, talk is cheap, but action talks loud. Either way. Hmmm, this is dependent on the answer to your first point. Does the vatsim app have to be closed source, or is the vatsim app that we/someone creates simply an app that has to link to a non-gpl, proprietary library? ..neither. Let's go dance the good old proven Samba way. - Most important, who of the OpenSource developers likes to take the risk of getting sued for license infringement because VATSIM might claim he could have transferred source code from the closed source interface to FlightGear ? Well I think it's clear that the vatsim folks are more than happy to ..sure. Let's make it beneficial for both parties. work with us if we are willing to meet them on their terms. ..these are negotiable. Let's see if we can talk them into GPL it all, both Red Hat and IBM makes good money on their GPL business. ..I see _no_ reason why Vatsim, the X-plane guys etc should'nt be able to do likewise. If we develop a friendly cooperative relationship with them instead of an adversarial relationship, and if we follow their procedures and guidelines, why would there be a risk of being sued? ..in the ideal world, there isn't. IRL, there is, and the easiest way to get at us (FG), is thru allegations of IP infringement, and the best way is thru people like Vatsim, who are _much_ easier to screw by litigation or by buying their debts and hike their loan etc expenses up really high, etc, if they don't wanna play ballmer games. ..you basically needs to be Microsoft, the SCO Group or North Korea to not be able to profit from the GPL. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel Bush's family and their Saudi partners make higher profits by preventing Saddam's huge Iraqi oil reserves from ever being sold. They'll Enron the world - George Watson 2001 For Hurricanes www.globalboiling.com For solar wind and earthquakes www.electricquakes.com Typos caused by two inch mobile phone keyboard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 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 to share the load with someone else ? - Most important, who of the OpenSource developers likes to take the risk of getting sued for license infringement because VATSIM might claim he could have transferred source code from the closed source interface to FlightGear ? Anyone ? Cheers, Martin. 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 our better scenery. Who's up for that task? Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 night and be pretty sure you'd have live ATC, without convincing anyone else to get involved, because you'd be joining an existing community. That's a double-edged sword...if you don't like VATSIM's admin/moderator policy or its management or dev policy, well, it already exists so you wouldn't have the kind of influence that you get from starting things on the ground floor. On the other hand, it's a lot less work to write a client for FG than to write a client, server, ATC client, possibly write clients for other flight sims to get higher user numbers, write the protocols, find a VoIP lib, and also get the servers and donated bandwidth and then convince a few thousand people to use the service on a regular basis. So I think you guys have to decide your goals before you can evaluate an approach! *Cheers* Ben -- Scenery Home Page: http://scenery.x-plane.com/ Scenery blog: http://xplanescenery.blogspot.com/ Plugin SDK: http://www.xsquawkbox.net/xpsdk/ Scenery mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Developer mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] vatsim
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 regular basis. If you wrote a pilot client for FG you could then go fly online on any given night and be pretty sure you'd have live ATC, without convincing anyone else to get involved, because you'd be joining an existing community. ..or shanghaiing it with a better deal. ;o) That's a double-edged sword...if you don't like VATSIM's admin/moderator policy or its management or dev policy, well, it already exists so you wouldn't have the kind of influence that you get from starting things on the ground floor. ..there _are_ other independent server communities out there. ;o) On the other hand, it's a lot less work to write a client for FG than to write a client, server, ATC client, possibly write clients for other flight sims to get higher user numbers, write the protocols, find a VoIP lib, and also get the servers and donated bandwidth and then convince a few thousand people to use the service on a regular basis. ..in the short term, agreed. The long term is a different matter and will be decided on its own merits, like it or not. Ethics is just one such important merit. ;o) So I think you guys have to decide your goals before you can evaluate an approach! ..one of the fun things here, is how trial and error works in these meritocracies, chk out which license the successful and major open source projects use and see if it matches our. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
