Hi Petr.

I (as the author of fgms) would be pretty much interrested to implement fgms 
as part of a HLA infrastructur.
What detained me from going that way is, that I found no free (as is free 
beer) documentation on HLA specifications and the quite complex structure 
(too complex for a one-man-show). Additionaly I'm not sure about license 
issues involed. Are we allowed to publish all parts of (our) HLA 
infrastructur under the GPL (which will kind of undermine cash-flow of 
documentation providers like the IEEE)?

On Dienstag, 4. März 2008, Petr Gotthard wrote:
> Dear FlightGear developers,(a short introduction first: I'm a newcomer to
> FlightGear, my professional profile can be found at
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/gotthard) May I ask whether you would
> be interested on striving to make FlightGear compliant with the US DoD High
> Level Architecture (HLA)? It could make FlightGear more attractive. I found
> that 1) several FlightGear multiplayer server feature requests at
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/fgms suggest to
> introduce - subscription-based property management - customizable set of
> propagated properties - more efficient data propagation mechanism - global
> status for date/time, weather, AI object positions 2) also the description
> of "A New Architecture for FlightGear Flight Simulator" proposes a
> distributed FlightGear architecture, which would allow all users to see the
> same AI
> objectshttp://wiki.flightgear.org/flightgear_wiki/images/1/1e/New_FG_archit
>ecture.pdf I believe that especially the HLA Declaration Management and Data
> Distrib ution Management perfectly match the above mentioned demands.Just
> look at Fig.2 in
> http://pagesperso-orange.fr/dominique.canazzi/paper.html. It's nothing that
> can be achieved in a few days, but I think it's feasible. To have a perfect
> solution we'd need to (probably in this order) - turn the FlightGear
> multiplayer server into a HLA RTI (run-time environment) - implement the
> multiplayer protocol according to HLA standards - factor out (extract) the
> non-aircraft objects (weather, AI objects, ATC server, etc.) to enable
> global status What is your opinion? I want to start developing a HLA RTI
> first, so (if you're interested) there will be plenty of time to discuss
> the requirements and architectural issues. One answer in advance: I've seen
> an idea to extend FlightGear to support the DIS protocol (a HLA predecessor
> and competitor). I believe that HLA is more suitable for this purpose
> because it implements Data Distribution Management.  Best Regards,Petr

This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to