Paul Morriss writes: > I got the acronym like this: > > *M*ultipl*AY*er *S*erver > > I prefer the acronym of MAPS. > > If people are intrested in the idea then I will start > to work on some specs. > > My original idea was to have two seperate server, one > for scenario and one for multiplayer, but I think that > a single multi-purpose scenario and player server > would be better. > > Thoughts?
I've thought in terms of a server that could manage a high volume of aircraft. It would send back the locations of only the closest/visible aircraft and not the entire set. It would also be nice to do something DIS-ish where you send position/orientation as well as velocities and accelerations. This way both the server and client can estimate the path of an aircraft (using the same algorithm and same input data) without sending further data ... until the server determines that the actual aircraft path has diverged far enough from the mutually estimated path. Then the server would send new data and repeat. For normal civilian flying this could result in a very large bandwidth savings. For dog fighting it probably wouldn't help much. If we had multiple servers covering multiple areas, it might be interesting to have a way to hand aicraft off from one server to another ... although that might be overkill for a first pass at this. A massive multiplayer server would be a cool thing to have ... I would say let's start simple and get the airplanes flying together ... then we can worry about weather and other things later. Also soemthing like "speak freely" would be really slick to investigate for doing simulated radio communications with live audio. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities curt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
