On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:38:18 -0500, Chris wrote in message
<1296095898.27791.1.camel@chrison-Aspire-5741G>:
> On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 23:41 -0700, jac...@lfstech.com wrote:
> > How about a show of hands? Is there enough interest and volunteers
> > to organize a team to tackle the problem?
>
> As
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 23:41 -0700, jac...@lfstech.com wrote:
> How about a show of hands? Is there enough interest and volunteers to
> organize a team to tackle the problem?
As I said in my original post, I'm not a programmer so, unfortunately, I
couldn't help in that regard. However, I'd be wil
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:56:41 + (UTC), Martin wrote in message
:
> Chris,
> I think the benefit of having sort of a VATSIM-interface or -bridge
> for FlightGear is pretty much unquestioned, therefore I'll leave these
> details out. The point is a completely different one and probably
> consist
Chris,
I think the benefit of having sort of a VATSIM-interface or -bridge for
FlightGear is pretty much unquestioned, therefore I'll leave these
details out. The point is a completely different one and probably
consist of just two simple parts:
1.) Like probably almost every other OpenSource proj
: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?From: Curtis Olson <curtol...@gmail.com>Date: Tue, January 25, 2011 10:26 pmTo: chrison...@yahoo.ca, FlightGear developers discussions<flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>HI Chris,
Here are a couple quick comment in reply ...
My sense is that th
Hi,
Hmmm, I would take it one step further...
You write and operate an FG/VATSIM server running on a dedicated
machine(s) and publish the FG open source interface and protocol. The
VATSIM side and source in the server is closed and operates with an
approved NDA. Anyone may join from the FG si
HI Chris,
Here are a couple quick comment in reply ...
My sense is that there are very few people who would outright oppose a
vatsim interface to flightgear. I think most people would consider this is
a good thing.
Here is my question/concern. If some developer gets approved by vatsim and
sign
[PREFACE: I'm a FG end-user who's not a programmer, nor am I an
intellectual property rights attorney. My sole desire is to use FG as a
"realistic" flight similator, as opposed to using it as a fun "game."
Please consider the remarks below in that context. Thanks!]
On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 19:15 -
Csaba Halász wrote:
> Not only that, but I personally don't even want to join or support an
> organization that requires NDA and plays silly corporate games instead
> of openly welcoming new arrivals. But that's just me.
No, not just you, count me in,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Gene Buckle wrote:
> I doubt it has anything to do with that Csaba. AFAIK, their primary
>> concern is with "griefers" ruining the network for others.
>
>
Here's the problem as I see it. Any FlightGear interface will necessarily
have a closed source interface to
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Csaba Halász wrote:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Victhor wrote:
I suppose most of the people here aren't willing to sign a NDA to code
something... I wouldn't be willing to do that if I could code.
Not only that, but I personally don't even want to join or support an
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Victhor wrote:
> I suppose most of the people here aren't willing to sign a NDA to code
> something... I wouldn't be willing to do that if I could code.
Not only that, but I personally don't even want to join or support an
organization that requires NDA and plays
I suppose most of the people here aren't willing to sign a NDA to code
something... I wouldn't be willing to do that if I could code.
> I would like to have atleast native binary-only program instead of
> running it through wine, since there isn't any other way, but that's
> only me :)
>
> 2011/1/
I would like to have atleast native binary-only program instead of
running it through wine, since there isn't any other way, but that's
only me :)
2011/1/20 Victhor :
> VATSIM requires any developer to sign a NDA before having access to
> their network, so it's not possible to make a open source c
VATSIM requires any developer to sign a NDA before having access to
their network, so it's not possible to make a open source client. SB747
was made before the NDA requirement, but I suppose sources can't be
released due to obvious licensing issues.
It seems it has been fixed so that it reports you
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:41 PM, jack.w wrote:
> Looking over the wiki page and info. Is Sb747 and AVC limited to MS
> windows based machines? Or is there a Linux version as well? Is source
> available?
>
>
Only the sources of Reed's FlightGear interface (SquawkGear) is available,
but not t
Looking over the wiki page and info. Is Sb747 and AVC limited to MS windows based machines? Or is there a Linux version as well? Is source available?
Last email on the FG forum from reeed was dated Apr 05, 2010.
John
Original Message Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel
Neat! :-)
Thank you for the info and quick reply.
Will give it a try
Jack
Original Message Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?From: ThorstenB <bre...@gmail.com>Date: Sat, January 15, 2011 9:20 amTo: FlightGear developers discussions<flightg
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 4:39 PM, jack.w wrote:
> Is this a feature in the latest git version? There have been discussions
> over the years on hooking into the IVAO and VATSIM communities. Was not
> aware that the connection had been made.
>
> Giving a talk in March at UC Davis on using FlightGea
Hi,
I noiced in a recent post by Gijs de Rooy on the scammers a commnet that FG now had VATSIM support. Interesting and nice.!
Is this a feature in the latest git version? There have been discussions over the years on hooking into the IVAO and VATSIM communities. Was not aware that the con
Hi Martin,
Both Ross (who was VP Development) and I (as VP Web Services) resigned our
positions over the summer. A replacement VP Development has not yet been
named. You may want to contact Dave Klain, VATSIM's new President, at
d.kl...@vatsim.net for the latest information.
Best, Tim
On Tue, Se
Hi Tim,
In article <98ffb57a0902061401q1383f347lf7b730d98c97c...@mail.gmail.com> you
wrote:
> First, you should know that neither Ross or I nor most of VATSIM view our
> current closed-source/NDA arrangement as ideal, and we are working our way
> (albeit quite slowly) to a future version that wi
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 12:46:31 +1300, James wrote in message
<498ccbd7.1030...@gogo.co.nz>:
> Tim Krajcar wrote:
> >
> > Your suggestion was to code a MP server that interfaces with
> > VATSIM; mine is to code a MP client that connects to FG running as
> > a MP server. Both are certainly workable i
Tim Krajcar wrote:
>
> Your suggestion was to code a MP server that interfaces with VATSIM;
> mine is to code a MP client that connects to FG running as a MP
> server. Both are certainly workable ideas and I think it would come
> down to whichever is less heavy lifting.
>
FlightGear itself does
Curtis,
Thanks for the response.
This is in fact how a number of our clients operate. There is no
VATSIM-specific code in MSFS or XP at all. the VATSIM client "joins" a
multiplayer session hosted by the user, and then pushes other VATSIM users'
data as MP planes into the client. Similarly, the cli
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Tim Krajcar wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I'm sure you've all seen the news recently of Microsoft closing the ACES
> Studio and throwing doubt on the future of the Flight Simulator franchise.
>
> I'm a member of VATSIM's Board of Governors; my official position is VP of
>
Hi there,
I'm sure you've all seen the news recently of Microsoft closing the ACES
Studio and throwing doubt on the future of the Flight Simulator franchise.
I'm a member of VATSIM's Board of Governors; my official position is VP of
Web Services but I work pretty closely with our VP of Developmen
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:36:46 +0100, Lee wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ultimately though, _all_ software will be designed by AIs and
> 'who' will 'own' it then? :)
..mmm, after AII; AI Intuition, porcupine aviation etc. ;o)
> ...but until then we have both O/S & C/S s/w and tha
Hi Arnt,
Personally, I think in the shorter term that s/w development will
move more and more towards O/S - and a good thing too - the
primary motivation behind C/S is profit, not quality and
performance, so it's never going to produce the best solutions.
The primary motivation behind O/S is
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:04:17 +0100, Lee wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tuesday 13 June 2006 23:26, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:29:05 +0100, Lee wrote in message
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > What exactly do you mean by compromising Open Source in the
> > > cont
On 6/13/06, Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Tony Pelton" wrote:
>
> Read Curt's posting,
i did ... and i think i _do_ understand the basics of the issue ...
> he simply assumes that the ground elevation at a
> specific location differs between two sims. Different sims have their
> scen
On Tuesday 13 June 2006 23:26, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:29:05 +0100, Lee wrote in message
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > What exactly do you mean by compromising Open Source in the
> > context of getting FG working with closed source/proprietary
> > software?
>
> ..usually this is
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:20:08 +0200, Major wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > X600, there's no 3D support in Xorg, AFAIR.
> >
> > ..unless you have Alzheimer and still remember checking
> > while you wrote this, chk this moving target again. ;o)
>
> No, I'm not quite old enough for
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:29:05 +0100, Lee wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What exactly do you mean by compromising Open Source in the
> context of getting FG working with closed source/proprietary
> software?
..usually this is done by idiot stunts like signing away your rights in
contrac
"Tony Pelton" wrote:
> On 6/13/06, Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
>>
>> > The issue is that the specific elevation of a specific point on the
>> > earth can be different between sims.
>>
>> Ok, this is obvious and in fact is an issue of scenery fidelity, but
>>
On 6/13/06, Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
>
> > The issue is that the specific elevation of a specific point on the
> > earth can be different between sims.
>
> Ok, this is obvious and in fact is an issue of scenery fidelity, but
> it is not a problem that could
On 6/13/06, Major A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As to my suggestion of linking FG and X-Plane to fly FG on VATSIM,
i think better, would be to provide an integration within x-plane that
would allow it to use the FG MP server system.
x-plane has an SDK that would make this quite possible i thin
"Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
> The issue is that the specific elevation of a specific point on the
> earth can be different between sims.
Ok, this is obvious and in fact is an issue of scenery fidelity, but
it is not a problem that could be resolved by any reference point, as
suspected in the beginn
On Tuesday 13 June 2006 22:13, Major A wrote:
> > > As to IVAO, it appears to be a much smaller community that VATSIM, so
> > > it's not even worth talking about in this context.
> >
> > Is a 61,400 member community not worth talking about? :)
>
> I just wanted to check myself, but the website doe
What exactly do you mean by compromising Open Source in the
context of getting FG working with closed source/proprietary
software?
While I much prefer O/S I'll use whatever software I want and
don't feel any qualms about using C/S proprietary software.
Software is a tool, not a religion and de
> The main problem here is when aircraft from other simulators taxi around
> airports. Unfortunately, this is one of the most interesting things to
> look at. FG could perhaps come up with a heuristic for deciding when an
> aircraft has WOW and force it to ground level. Again, that could beg
> > X600, there's no 3D support in Xorg, AFAIR.
>
> ..unless you have Alzheimer and still remember checking
> while you wrote this, chk this moving target again. ;o)
No, I'm not quite old enough for Alzheimer's. You're right, the latest
version does seem to do 3D on my card (at least glxinfo r
> > As to IVAO, it appears to be a much smaller community that VATSIM, so
> > it's not even worth talking about in this context.
>
> Is a 61,400 member community not worth talking about? :)
I just wanted to check myself, but the website doesn't seem to be very
functional...
> If you're based i
Martin Spott wrote:
>Hmm, do M$F$ and X-Plane use different ellipsoids for their scenery ?
>To my understanding as long as both use an international acknowledged
>reference system like WGS84, then there should not be the requirement
>for a reference point.
>Everything in FlightGear that relates to
Major A wrote:
>> I see another issue here. Even if the licensing issue is solved, there
>> would
>> still be problems. For example, planes hovering/submerging on taxiways and
>> runways, because both us and MSFS have different scenery. To avoid this
>> problem, we would have to force MSFS
> As to IVAO, it appears to be a much smaller community that VATSIM, so
> it's not even worth talking about in this context.
Is a 61,400 member community not worth talking about? :)
If you're based in Europe then IVAO is normally a lot more active during the
evenings than VATSIM - one of the re
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:37:39 +0200, Major wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > ..you've probably heard "drop ATI windroid driver and use Xorg's
> > ati|radeon" before. Very recent video card?
>
> X600, there's no 3D support in Xorg, AFAIR.
..unless you have Alzheimer and still rememb
Way back on compuserv forums when I first posted the idea of multiple
people working together to build an open flight sim along the lines of
linux I never expected there would be talk of rolling that into some sim
that is proprietary in any way.
Build it and they will come.
Vatsim will convert t
> ..you've probably heard "drop ATI windroid driver and use Xorg's
> ati|radeon" before. Very recent video card?
X600, there's no 3D support in Xorg, AFAIR. Wait, my computer at work
has an X300 and there is 3D in Xorg for that, but it crashes after a
few minutes even when not using any 3D grap
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:50:34 +0200, Major wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> As to my suggestion of linking FG and X-Plane to fly FG on VATSIM, I
> haven't forgotten the project but haven't actually got a working
> installation of X-Plane under Linux that would allow me to write a
> plugin.
> I see another issue here. Even if the licensing issue is solved, there would
> still be problems. For example, planes hovering/submerging on taxiways and
> runways, because both us and MSFS have different scenery. To avoid this
> problem, we would have to force MSFS to use our better scene
Hi Ben,
bsupnik wrote:
> On the other hand, it's a lot less work to write a client for FG than to
> write a client, server, ATC client, possibly write clients for other
> flight sims to get higher user numbers, write the protocols, find a VoIP
> lib, and also get the servers and donated bandwi
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:47:10 -0400, bsupnik wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Y'all,
>
> GWMobile wrote:
> > Why not just duplicate vatsim with independent GPL programming?
>
> I think the point of VATSIM (and IVAO) is that they are existing
> communities with user bases that show up
Hi Y'all,
GWMobile wrote:
> Why not just duplicate vatsim with independent GPL programming?
I think the point of VATSIM (and IVAO) is that they are existing
communities with user bases that show up on a regular basis. If you
wrote a pilot client for FG you could then go fly online on any given
On Monday 12 June 2006 15:22, Martin Spott wrote:
> Ok, in theory having a closed source interface _might_ serve the
> licensing issues, _but_:
> - Who likes to have to use a closed source module in order to connect
> their OpenSource flight simulation to VATSIM ?
> - More important, who of th
Why not just duplicate vatsim with independent GPL programming?
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 5:52 pm, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:39:40 -0500, Curtis wrote in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Martin Spott wrote:
>>
>> >Ok, in theory having a closed source interface _might_ serve the
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:39:40 -0500, Curtis wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Martin Spott wrote:
>
> >Ok, in theory having a closed source interface _might_ serve the
> >licensing issues, _but_:
> > - Who likes to have to use a closed source module in order to
> > connect their OpenSource
"Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
> Martin Spott wrote:
>> - More important, who of the OpenSource developers likes to maintain
>> a closed source module, compile it at least for half a dozend
>> different platforms and play the lonesome cowboy to whom bug
>> reports will be adressed - without having
Martin Spott wrote:
>Ok, in theory having a closed source interface _might_ serve the
>licensing issues, _but_:
> - Who likes to have to use a closed source module in order to connect
> their OpenSource flight simulation to VATSIM ?
>
>
Does the bridge module between flightgear and vatsim nee
"Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
> If people don't like Vatsim's approach or their licensing terms, you are
> welcome to your opinion, but maybe you should take it up with the vatsim
> folks rather than firing random shots in the air around here. But if
> you do take it up with vatsim directly, please
Justin Smithies wrote:
>How about we just use our own system based on data from the FG prop tree.
>We already have the google map servers , so all we would need to do is get
>other people to host their own too and become controllers for different
>areas.
>For voip / text we could use a secondary
On Monday 12 June 2006 20:06, Martin Spott wrote:
> Honestly, I'm really curious to know what the _real_ driving force is
> behind this protectionism.
> Is this stupid arrogance ("if they want to participate, they'll have to
> follow our rules - not matter if it makes sense"), simply incompetence
>
How about we just use our own system based on data from the FG prop tree.
We already have the google map servers , so all we would need to do is get
other people to host their own too and become controllers for different
areas.
For voip / text we could use a secondary app which would run on Win ,
Hi Ben,
bsupnik wrote:
> - VATSIM could require a FG-client to use their libs (under some terms)
> as conditions for network approval. I thikn that VASTIM users are
> required as part of their membership agreement with the network to only
> use "approved" clients.
Honestly, I'm really curiou
Hi,
Ralf Gerlich schrieb:
> When they switched to the new radar client, I tried to keep up, but with
> the team at that time (not their head, Julian Smart, but instead those
Kudos to the right people...somehow I managed to mix up Julian Smart and
Jason Grooms. I should get an appointment at my
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:05:28 -0400, Tony wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 6/12/06, Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Justin Smithies wrote:
> > On the other hand I was told that certain people didn't care about
> > licensing and hacked the VATSIM authentication protocol
>
> f
Hi Martin,
Martin Spott wrote:
> Well, at least in theory FlightGear would 'only' need to make use of
> the communication protocol, not of any third-party library that you
> mention (which apparently implements the protocol).
In theory, yes. In practice there could be additional issues:
- VATSI
Hi Ben,
bsupnik wrote:
> The authentication protocol has been overhauled, and if you were offered
> an NDA more than months ago, the NDA is overhauled too. But
> there is still an NDA and there is still restrictions on the licensing
> of the lib. (It's not just the NDA that would be a restr
Hi,
Martin Spott schrieb:
> The story _I_ was told reads like this:
>
> They have severe difficulties with their user authentication because
> the protocol they use is considered to be "braindead" (TM). So they try
> to hide the drawbacks of their authentication protocol by forcing
> people to si
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:25:58 -0500, Curtis wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Justin Smithies wrote:
>
> >Just got a reply from Vatsim ive pasted it it below.
> >
> >: it's certainly viable to start such a client. However, in order to
> > connect to the VATSIM network, it needs to be using
On 6/12/06, Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Justin Smithies wrote:
> On the other hand I was told that certain people didn't care about
> licensing and hacked the VATSIM authentication protocol
for reference ...
http://news.com.com/Blizzard+wins+lawsuit+on+video+game+hacking/2100-1047_3
"Curtis L. Olson" wrote:
> Vatsim would be a "competitor" to our native multiplayer system, right?
Well, we might need some more users of our own system to really
compete with VATSIM :-)
> It goes against the windows philosophy of cramming everything into a big
> monolithic application, [...]
Hi Martin,
The authentication protocol has been overhauled, and if you were offered
an NDA more than months ago, the NDA is overhauled too. But
there is still an NDA and there is still restrictions on the licensing
of the lib. (It's not just the NDA that would be a restriction on
clients -
Justin Smithies wrote:
> Just got a reply from Vatsim ive pasted it it below.
> > it's certainly viable to start such a client. However, in order to
> > connect to the VATSIM network, it needs to be using libraries whose
> > source code is proprietary to VATSIM (i.e. its source code is under Non
Justin Smithies wrote:
>Just got a reply from Vatsim ive pasted it it below.
>
>:
>
>it's certainly viable to start such a client. However, in order to
>connect to the VATSIM network, it needs to be using libraries whose
>source code is proprietary to VATSIM (i.e. its source code is under Non
>
Just got a reply from Vatsim ive pasted it it below.
:
it's certainly viable to start such a client. However, in order to
connect to the VATSIM network, it needs to be using libraries whose
source code is proprietary to VATSIM (i.e. its source code is under Non
Disclosure Agreement).
If that'
Hi,
Sorry to barge in again, but I work with the VATSIM guys and can tell
you: you may have licensing issues...email Lefteris to find out about
such a thing, but you may want to find out up-front if the licensing on
the VATSIM VoIP stuff is compatible with FG (either legally or
philosophically
Is anyone working on a plugin / client to enable us FG users to use the vatsim
network with voice too ?
I myself can't find anything at all , maybe some of us could get together and
start such a project ?
Regards,
Justin Smithies
___
Flightgear-devel
78 matches
Mail list logo
