On Monday, 10 November 2003 21:14, Gene Buckle wrote: > BTW, I know a group of virtual F-16 drivers that would practically wet > themselves over software they could use to drive their cockpits with. :) > Falcon 4.0 doesn't go far enough with their data exports.
I like the idea of FlightGear being able to support military type stuff but where do we draw the line? If there is too much "military" specific code hooking into core parts of FG then it could get messy and even slow things down both framerate wise and development wise. There are so many things that are specific to aircraft like the F16 that require more than just an instrument display. For instance ground radar and FLIR systems. Being able to acquire and lock onto ground targets has nothing to do with general aviation but is absolutely necessary for military simulations. That means there would have to be an interface between the panel system and terrain rendering system. We could also add some sort of online, persistent, dynamic, war engine for multiplayer missions. One could go a step further and reason that FlightGear should support space simulation as well. (probably not that hard considering that FG simulates the celestial bodies pretty well) Take that far enough and we'll soon have lunar rovers and ... and ... and ... What is the chief goal/aim of FG? I thought it was trying to simulate just general and commercial aviation. However having said that I would love an F16 multiplayer simulation. :) BUT not at the expense of general aviation. Paul _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
