Durk Talsma wrote:

Hmm, that's an interesting thought, because that was actually one of the possible mechanisms that I had in mind for the traffic manager. That is, have the schedules managed by an independent program that would communicate with FlightGear through a network layer. In the end I decided not to go into this direction after doing some tests and finding that the the easiest way to do it was by adding the traffic manager as a subsystem to the main FlightGear program, specifically because the overhead of managing the schedules turned out to be a quite low.

Doing this through a network remains an interesting option though...

If you're going with the "independant program" route, then wouldn't it make sense to have the AI handled in that program - this way it could feed as many flightgear systems as you like, and they'll all have a consistent view of available traffic. If handled in this way there'd basically be no difference between an AI aircraft, and another instance of flightgear running over the network. It also presents some interesting opportunities for ATC when you have a consistent view of the world like this.

Jon Stockill

Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to