Hi Durk, Just a thought...
Is it possible to design/redesign the AI stuff so that it propogates across multiple computers or cores via some IPC process -- most likely sockets. Shared memory would be ideal, but not sure how MS or Mac would handle that. On my 747, running with a quad core I5 machine. With a master and two slaves and dedicated graphics boards for each core and using the local loopback address 127.0.0.1 to connect master and slave FDMs, the frame rate is over 60fps with all the bells and whistles turned on. The down side is none of the features such as 3D clouds, AI traffic, are sync'd between the master and slaves. (or am I missing something?) Run everything from a single core with multiple cameras to keep in sync and the frame rate drops to around 27-28 fps. My wish list would be the ability to run something like the AI traffic and manager as either an integral part of the FG binary or as a seperate app similar to the JSBSim implementation with the additional caveat of providing the master and each slave the ability to receive AI updates via a socket and port. That would provide the option to run on a single core machine or take advantage of multi-core architectures. If that seems like a good idea and feasible more than willing to pitch in and help develop the code. Regards John > > after a slightly longer than expected break from FlightGear, I started > picking up coding again about a week or two ago. I am currently working > integrating the AIModels based traffic system with an ATC system in which > the user can also participate. It's going to be similar to the system that > David Luff has been working on for a long time, and is basically intended > to be a replacement of his AI/ATC code (in mutual agreement with David). > In some respects it's also similar to the "ATC" system from FS2004. But, I > will follow my own intuitions in implementing this system. The last > weeks, I've been mainly working on getting reaquainted with the inner > workings of FlightGear. Most specifically, finding out how the AI system > actually worked and finding out how to read a keyboard command from a GUI > dialog box. > > Today, I had my first minor success by managing to let my own aircraft > request permission for engine startup while parked at the B terminal at > EHAM. I managed to re-use a lot of classes that were originally designed > for AI use, and today's engine startup clearance was still accomplished > through the AI system. (i.e., it was my AI copilot doing the talking. When > it comes to user interactions, the next logical move will obviously be to > block ATC transmissions that are initiated by the AI co-pilot, although it > might be interesting to keep this as an option (see below). I still need > to look at the details, but this should be quite doable. > > As a slightly unexpected bonus, today I realized that I can use all the > relevant classes from the AIModels and traffic manager system here and set > them up to reflect the user's aircraft in the AI world, without actually > interfering with the AIModels and traffic manager subsystems. In doing so, > I realize that there are some interesting future possibilities: > > 1) Let the AI system create a flight plan for the user aircraft and use > this flightplan eiter for VFR or IFR flight planning > 2) Let the ATC system handle the comm radio and let it serve as a virtual > co-pilot. > 3) Build a simple light-weight flight planner into FlightGear > 4) Possibly a lot more that I haven't even thought of > >>From this initial success, it's probably still going to take a long road >> before I have a fully fully functional system up and running, so it may >> take a while before I will commit this to get. Nevertheless, I just >> wanted share this minor triumph with you all and to give a quick heads up >> with respect to my current flightgear whereabouts. > > Cheers, > Durk > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Forrester Wave Report - Recovery time is now measured in hours and minutes > not days. Key insights are discussed in the 2010 Forrester Wave Report as > part of an in-depth evaluation of disaster recovery service providers. > Forrester found the best-in-class provider in terms of services and > vision. > Read this report now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/ibm-webcastpromo > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Forrester Wave Report - Recovery time is now measured in hours and minutes not days. Key insights are discussed in the 2010 Forrester Wave Report as part of an in-depth evaluation of disaster recovery service providers. Forrester found the best-in-class provider in terms of services and vision. Read this report now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/ibm-webcastpromo _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
