On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:22:06 +0200, Boris wrote in message 

> John Wojnaroski wrote:
> > 
> > Will FlightGear provide a pilot entity, controller entity, or both?
> This is what I would PERSONALLY consider reasonable:
>       1) make FG export the necessary data from its property tree
>       2) interface FG with the network(s) - so that the flights show
>          up on *normal* (already available) VATSIM/IVAO clients
>       3) incorporate a cross-platform VoIP tool, this would not need
>             to be compiled by default, but should rather be optional
>       => so far this is step #1
> At this point we would already be able to use FlightGear with
> (one of) the major network(s)
>       4) think about implementing a cross-platform ATC client,
>             possibly based on 'xatc'
> At this point one would also have the possibility to attract
> users of other platforms to the whole ATC thing
> And then there's of course still the possibility, to
>       5) think about ways to add TTS/ARS capabilities
> These would not need to be directly linked to any of the
> networks, but it would certainly be interesting to be
> able to:
>       6) mix virtual 'real' controllers and AI controllers.
> But, I think it's still quite a task ...

..what do we have right now?  FG can be rigged to run as 
an "ATC World Server" now, right?
We have xatc as a viable client to that "FG ATC World Server", 
we have FG itself, so we need to come up a protocol to help the 
other people squak FlightGearese, what else did I miss here?

.."FlightGear ATC World Animation Server" => "FATWA Server"? ;-)

..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

Reply via email to