Curtis L. Olson wrote:
John Wojnaroski wrote:
Having a voice capability for flightgear is a good idea, however
irrespective of the actual mechanisms to implement the technology, we
should consider the intent and purpose
To set up an ATC system requires a lot of work and a cadre of
dedicated individuals. In the absence of such a system or standards
to adhere to proper ATC phraseology and protocols, it will degenerate
into a chat room. If people want to "blather" it might be best to
use some other method or separate medium. I don't think FG needs to
be in the business of building another VoIP phone system.
Here's my take on that. I would think that people would voluntarily
setup ATC voip servers on their own hardware. At the moment I don't
think there would be resources to setup a dedicated FG ATC voip
server, but if we get a system that works well and it made sense to
centralize it, we could discuss that.
So in terms of people setting up servers, I would suspect that some
servers would be managed more professionally than others. If a
particluar server degenerates into a voip 'chat' room and the server
maintainer doesn't care, then so be it. But I would assume that at
least a few voip servers would be held to pretty rigorous standards
and people abusing the airwaves or not taking the 'game' seriously
could be booted off and sent to a less serious server. I think this
could be controlled pretty well with social/cultural pressure,
especially if there was some ultimate enforcement mechanism (which
might be as simple as adding an entry to a /etc/hosts.deny file on the
server if someone persists in breaking the rules ...) or perhaps we
need a virtual airforce with guns and missles to keep the airwaves
pristine ... :-)
Back to serioiusness, I think since most FlightGear participants are
not active licensed pilots, there would be some need for flexibility
and education on the proper procedures ... just like in real life, but
obviously without real lives directly at stake so we can afford to
allow more mistakes and more active learning.
You' re reading my mind :-). It would be a great tool for training and
teaching. Some of the MS ATC systems have a mentoring and training
program for "newbies" and I suppose some sort of certification before
one is allowed to go live. Again, a lot of work and dedication required
Seems the only reason to include such a capability "inside" FlightGear
would be for a centralized controller and a desire to operate in
compliance with the appropriate rules. Otherwise let folks set up
servers on their own, set the rules for participation, and press go and
no need to engage FG.
Regards
John W.
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
