On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:14:06 +0200, Boris wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:56:50 +0200, Boris wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > >>And there are many more hits regarding the IVAO vs. VATSIM debate. > >> > >>Personally, I consider this ridiculous: combining their efforts and > >>creating ONE BIG network would benefit EVERYBODY - everything would > >>be perfect if they could also initiate opensource development of a > >>COMMON protocol that is NOT specific to a particular OS or even > >>flight simulator ... > > > > > > ..what happens if _we_ define that common protocol? ;-) > > "FlightGear ATC Protocol"? (Or is it a SimGear job?) > > I don't like the idea of starting yet another network ... ..not what I said, reread the above. ;-) > one should always try to make use of existing infrastructures, ..where ever such exists, agreed. There are tons of people out there, defining what we (FG) needs in joint FAA and ICAO etc ATC etc simulations, leaves a challenge to the tons of people out there to organise something useful to them and us. The people who acts upon my wee challenge, forms an infrastructure. ..but _someone_ has to make that first step. A "FlightGear Compliant ATC Protocol" that can be used across ATC sims, flight sims, oses, licenses, etc, ideally providing a RL ATC interface, makes a fine set of training tools. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
