Arnt Karlsen wrote:

..what do we have right now? FG can be rigged to run as an "ATC World Server" now, right?

lol, I don't even know about that :-) another evidence for the lack of documentation about FG :-/

We have xatc as a viable client to that "FG ATC World Server",

I haven't yet really played around with it - but personally I would prefer using a cross-platform toolkit, rather than relying on X - IF this is really meant to be used for FlightGear, it should at least compensate for all the weaknesses that the other major networks have - so it should preferably be possible to use it on any platform.

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?

Arnt, without getting into too much detail about the recent discussions with the VATSIM/IVAO folks, I would really encourage you to think more about it and write down your ideas - currently, it doesn't sound that good for an opensource'd collaboration with either of the two networks, so if the latter remains a pre-requisite for *any* collaboration (which is my feeling), your ideas might very well become valuable ...

Depending on what John & David think, I'm going to summarize
the so far received feedback later: some of it makes certainly
for some good entertainment ...

In the meantime, here are my pre-liminary thoughts about what
data FlightGear needs to make available in order to become
"ATC-able" (most of it is already in the prop tree):

        -       position (altitude), speed (V/S), heading

        -       aircraft category (wake turbulence class)

        -       type of aircraft regarding its appearance, to pick
                appropriate models within other clients

        -       currently set squawk code

        -       currently set radio frequency

probably there's more  ...

It's probably worth to add your own thoughts, so that there's a
"fallback" plan - it's certainly easier to make a quick stab
at the ATC integration, than it is to come up with the ATC AI
part ...

The major disadvantage would of course be that there's no
integration with existing virtual ATC networks - so,
there wouldn't be any existing ATC community to really
'drive' such a FlightGear ATC project ... and even if you
could attract some people, because of its opensource nature:
FlightGear does certainly not have such a large user community
as simulators like MS FS and X-Plane have, so this is then another
drawback for potential virtual ATC controllers.

In the end this would become a totally new project - nothing that
could be run under FlightGear's umbrella easily, at least not if
it's supposed to become 'successful' - and it's only going to
become interesting for the FlightGear FLYING community if there
are really people who would do the actual controlling part.

Making VATSIM/IVAO people switch to something like what Arnt
suggested, would really require to incorporate so many new
things ...just to make the change really feasible.

This is certainly beyond the scope of a FlightGear ATC
*SUB* project.

-------- Boris

_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Reply via email to