I have created a "portable" ethernet library that supports both Linux and Windows, this would give us total portability.
The second reason I am in support of an "external" server is that ai can start to eat processing time, specially if you have lots of stuff going on, where as if you are just sending an update message across the network you are keeping the logic out of the main code base. Also as Martin pointed out, this would also aid multi-player support, as several flight-gear users can talk to the same scenario, thus they can fly around in unison. Ohh and I am in total support of well defined interface ;) Paul > This would support the idea of a general interface abstaction between FDM on > one and the whole I/O stuff (keyboard, mouse, joystick, sound, screen) on > the other end. This might fit for different purposes: > > 1.) Exchangeable FDM on local machine > 2.) remote FDM with 'stupid' front-end > 3.) multiplayer-server > 4.) AI ... > > > Paul's idea resembles me of the way X clients communicate with the server. > Local clients prefer shared memory (at least on several commercial Unices, I > believe it's the same on XFree86), remote clients use TCP/IP. I don't know > how portable this could be .... ? > > Martin. > -- > Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! > ---------------------------------------------------- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
