> 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. > Understood. The only feature that I can think of that cannot be an external plug-in is collision detection.
> 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. This can be made a plug-in that uses the same terrain data that FG is using. All the code that is the FLIR (or LANTIRN, or LITENING II, etc) could (and should!) be implemented as an external plug in. If it's executing on the same host as the simulation, it would need "write permission" to the main frame buffer to allow its display to be shown. This same method could apply to a glass flight director or ADI, engine displays, etc. A plug-in system like that would be a "universal" technology that could be applied to both military and civilian/commercial systems. > We could also add some sort of online, persistent, dynamic, war engine for > multiplayer missions. > *eyes glaze over* Oooooooooooh. *wistful sigh* > 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 ... > YES! > 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. > Of course not. The two genres can live together quite well as long as there are not any squabbling about the glue points between the two worlds. Anyone know of a good C++ tutorial? :) Something tells me I'm gonna need it. *g* g. -- Proud owner of 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
