Hi Joe, On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Jörg Emmerichwrote: > Hi Stuart > sorry that I am that stubborn on this - but somehow I am afraid that > this item could affect our ideas of a "free and open" community.
No problem. These are very valuable discussions to have. However, I don't think this has a massive impact on our free an open community. > And I am glad to see that Rob has similar concerns - and also Peters > aspect of MPmap is making me worry even more - because which ATC does > not also use the MPmap in parallel for the Area/Approach control? - and > if it gets hectic the poor ATC might confuse himself by seeing traffic > in MPmap which is not on his ATCradar. (Happens to me all the time when > people show up at EDDF on MPserver02 - they usually pop in/out PilotList > all the time and drive me nuts! Seems to be a poor data-exchange between > MP02 and the rest of MPservers. Generally it works - with interrupts!) The key thing here is that all of this is completely optional. It provides function that people can use if they find it valuable, but by default the behaviour will be as it is at present, except that people can choose to be "ignored" if they wish. Looking forward to a time when the number of FG users on MP is in the thousands rather than less than a hundred, without some way of filtering into different groups, we're bound to have situations where two mutually exclusive groups want to use the same airspace for different reasons (say a 1930s fly in and a Vietnam era Red Flag military exercise). At present the only way around that is to have a separate set of MP servers or to manually ignore every aircraft you don't want to see. This offers a solution at a higher level of granularity. > Maybe just a MouseKlick in the PilotList to set a different color in the > PilotList could be good enough for "ignore". (But does it disappear when > the pilot "pops out because of delayed MPserver-data" or when the pilot > keys "p" for pause (e.g. to type a msg)??? Currently, one can ignore an aircraft by checking the checkbox in the Pilot List. Previously this just ignored the user's chat messages, but in the current git version this also hides the aircraft. So, this feature is already available, and these MP Groups simply provide a way of grouping aircraft to ignore.. The solution is resilient to aircraft dropping out and returning due to delayed server data or people pausing, as the list of pilots to ignore is based on call sign. > With all the other "ratings/grades/etc." i would propose something even > more drastic then you propose now -- but be warned: that would be a very > big effort and would have some impact on many areas of design and > philosophy: > > In the forum there are many who try to build up Flying-Schools - > although it seems it is just impossible to find teachers being available > on a constant, long term schedule -- as well as enough students that are > willing to "go to school" on a scheduled period. Yes, I've seen the same issue. IMHO the tutorial subsystem probably represents a better "classroom" as the learner can use it at any time, repeat lessons etc. There are already some tutorials for the c172p, but they take a bit of effort to create. > To attract students I would propose "real grades from the (to be build > up) FlightGear academy" shown in the FlightGear Member-List - and only > being set by "authorized instructors". (The member himself must have the > ability to show/noShow that grade!) That marks could be picked up in > FlightGear and shown in different colors in PilotList (may be even in > MPmap). That could develop to become a big "stimulus/attraction" (and > could be withdrawn if needed!). Also our Graphical-enthusiasts could > develop nice certificates - even good enough to pinup at the > working-place (and thus help us promote FlightGear!). See e.g. > http://www.emmerich-j.de/FGFS/SOLO.png - I still show that proudly > everywhere - and what is the difference between a certificate from AOPA > or FGFS?? For sure it would be a good advertisement (for FGFS!)! That would be quite a different challenge, rely on a central repository of user data, and as you point out, doesn't feel particularly "free and open". However, I think it would be an excellent function to include in a separate FG Flight School website, to encourage users to progress through their private pilot license, intrument, etc. Using the tutorial system would limit real-time instructor interaction to check-flights. -Stuart ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
