On January 6, 2006 03:02 am, Martin Spott wrote: > You put then whole idea question just because you don't know who would > do the ATC ? Please don't answer the question with a question. Who's going to be the ATC?
> Doing things right (TM) is always an appealing argument. The real world > has voice ATC communication, so doing things right would imply doing > the same in FlightGear as well. But "doing things right" is not the > point here. What are you talking about?! "Doing things right" has always been the point in FlightGear. Yes, the real world has voice ATC communication, and this does imply FlightGear should do the same. However, for the third time I am going to repeat this: it is going to be a useless feature. You don't have anyone being the ATC. Even if you do, there is not going to be enough "coverage", and one would end up relying on some text-based AI-ATC system at the end of the day. As some people have pointed out, the voice feature makes ATC communication easier. But where the heck is our ATC feature? Ampere ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
