On Monday 14 May 2007 04:38, Stuart Buchanan wrote: > If what you are suggesting is that to use MP, we will have to run the FDM > on a server and accept a much lower refresh rate on the client, then I > don't think that is acceptable as it will make the civil MP experience > much worse.
This isn't as big a deal as many have advocated. There's no requirement that the FDM server has to be run at a central location. The server can be run on the client machine as well, serving FDM functions to the client only, and latency wouldn't be an issue at all. >From what I can see, a FDM server brings in tremendous potentials to Flightgear, whereas enhancement to the present architecture would offer little. For example, to enable multiple users to fly a single aircraft, there must be some sort of server to recieve inputs from multiple locations and to multicasts FDM outputs. There's no reason why one would want to hack a client to make it do the jobs of a server when this can be very easily implemented if a dedicate FDM server is present. > My conclusion is that the dog-fighting MP protocol (using a server FDM) is > going to have to be completely separate from the civil MP protocol (usign > a client FDM). > > -Stuart That's an absolutely awful idea. You will end up with two development branches to keep track of, and inevitibly the more "popular" protocol would end up being much more advanced than the less "popular" one. Ampere ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
