On Sunday 09 November 2003 22:23, John Barrett wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lee Elliott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 5:05 PM > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status > > > > On Sunday 09 November 2003 21:16, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > > > John Barrett writes: > > > > Would a --no-combat option on the server be acceptable ?? > > > > > > > > (i.e. someone can pull the trigger, but it wont do anything to the > > > > multiplayer world -- they could still use you for a target, but you > > would > > > > never see the ordinance) > > > > > > That sounds reasonable. I would add the additional condition that > > > people running with --no-combat would not even see people running with > > > --combat. I think we should keep the two worlds completely separate. > > > I suppose if the combat people want to see me, that's ok, but I don't > > > want to see them. The idea is that if a few of us are flying around > > > the pattern following civilian rules, it doesn't make sense to have a > > > bunch of combat planes looping around and making high speed passes on > > > us. That doesn't make sense for the civilian world ... and if we are > > > doing what we are supposed to be doing, seeing the combat aircraft > > > using as as target practice could be very disruptive. Ultimately I > > > think I would vote for keeping the two worlds entirely separate. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Curt. > > > -- > > > Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project > > > Twin Cities curt 'at' me.umn.edu curt 'at' flightgear.org > > > Minnesota http://www.flightgear.org/~curt http:// > > www.flightgear.org > > > > > > Wouldn't it be better to have several instances of the server, running > > either a non-combat environment or a combat environment, but not trying > > to do both at the same time? Non-combat servers would talk to other > > non-combat servers, and like-wise with the combat servers. > > > > I'd be a bit concerned about problems with, for example, the combat > > environment affecting the non-combat environment, and visa-versa. > > > > Ohhh we arent even CLOSE to talking about distributed servers yet -- lets > get a single server system online and tested first -- THEN we can talk about > a distributed system that simulates the entire world !! (which I think would > be ultimatly kewl -- non-combat, recent a/c, simulated ATC and RATC, etc) > > I'm already thinking about chopping off data updates for a/c that are not > within visual/radar range to keep the message traffic reasonable for sims > covering large terrain in the single server setup -- distributed servers > will need much more than that :) Something along the lines of regional ATC > servers covering large areas, then a server for each airport to handle > approach control and ground traffic > > Though actually -- a single master server could handle all the position > updates without that much trouble given the update limiter code and headless > (no opengl display) operation -- offload the airport and regional ATC to > stand alone apps that interface to the master server as clients. (thats > going to take some work on the ATC system to make it interface to the system > like a network peer, even for single user operation, such that you can > startup instances of the ATC code for specific airports and RATC) >
I read your later post after I'd sent that:) I agree that the server operator choosing the type of world is a good idea. However, there's potential for quite a wide range of realistic scenarios including elements of both non-combat and combat features. For example, air/sea rescue missions (and their code infrastructure) would be appropriate in most multiplayer scenarios, both non-combat and combat - if you were flying ga into/out of, or in the vicinity of an airfield that hosted air/sea rescue services in a non-combat world it would be realstic for those operations to occur at the same time and even interfere with normal flying in that world, according to the appriopriate procedures. Hmm... perhaps the person who was thinking about puting some life on the ground might like to try shipping first as it might be easier than trying to follow roads;) Similarly, and bearing in mind that some work has been done on simulating failures, it could be possible for an a/c to declare an emergency, say an engine fire on a multiple, that disrupts all the other folk in the curcuit. Realistically, civil airliners have also been shot down, but I can't see anyone really wanting to try that scenario as it's a bit pointless, or seems so to me. LeeE _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
