Re: [Flightgear-devel] coming up with ideas for an ATC protocol - just in case ....
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: For FlightGear and X-Plane. There may be problems working with Microsoft's Flight Simulator as it uses a different airport database than us. X-Plane is meanwhile supported by a customized version of "squawkbox" - implemented via some kind of plugin ... So: X-Plane currently also flies 'WITH' MS FS 200x traffic on VATSIM. I don't know about the real differences between the two databases, but if VATSIM manages to combine the traffic, it cannot be all that hard - one might need to apply offsets to navaids/airports, to unify data ... --- Boris ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] coming up with ideas for an ATC protocol - just in case ....
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:28:20 -0400, Ampere wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On September 25, 2004 04:55 pm, Oliver C. wrote: > > And this would be to create our own full open source ATC network > > that is capable to speak to FlightGear and X-Plane and Microsoft's > > Flight Simulator. > > For FlightGear and X-Plane. There may be problems working with > Microsoft's Flight Simulator as it uses a different airport database > than us. ..if Microsoft has flawed data, chanses are they might respond to market pressure. ;-) ..meanwhile, we could just make our data available. ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] coming up with ideas for an ATC protocol - just in case ....
For FlightGear and X-Plane. There may be problems working with Microsoft's Flight Simulator as it uses a different airport database than us. Ampere On September 25, 2004 04:55 pm, Oliver C. wrote: > And this would be to create our own full open source ATC network > that is capable to speak to FlightGear and X-Plane and Microsoft's Flight > Simulator. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] coming up with ideas for an ATC protocol - just in case ....
On Saturday 25 September 2004 20:38, Boris Koenig wrote: > > The major disadvantage would of course be that there's no > integration with existing virtual ATC networks - so, > there wouldn't be any existing ATC community to really > 'drive' such a FlightGear ATC project ... and even if you > could attract some people, because of its opensource nature: > FlightGear does certainly not have such a large user community > as simulators like MS FS and X-Plane have, so this is then another > drawback for potential virtual ATC controllers. > There is one way how this could be done. And this would be to create our own full open source ATC network that is capable to speak to FlightGear and X-Plane and Microsoft's Flight Simulator. Because if this software is capable of connecting to all 3 flight sims, there is a chance, that a community for this ATC network will grow very rapidly. Of course, this will lead to a leaving of people at the other 2 ATC networks like VATSIM and IVAO when our ATC network allows to talk with FS2004 clients too, but this is their problem when they don't want to work with us now. Open source can be very powerfull, can't it? :) > In the end this would become a totally new project That's the only problem, someone would have to do this work and write the software for such an ATC network and this wouldn't be a small project. > nothing that > could be run under FlightGear's umbrella easily, at least not if > it's supposed to become 'successful' If it supports all 3 major flight sims and have software that can compete with the other ATC networks at the beginning, it will be successful on the long run . Because that's the thing real open source software can do best. just my 2 cents. Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] coming up with ideas for an ATC protocol - just in case ....
Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..what do we have right now? FG can be rigged to run as an "ATC World Server" now, right? lol, I don't even know about that :-) another evidence for the lack of documentation about FG :-/ We have xatc as a viable client to that "FG ATC World Server", I haven't yet really played around with it - but personally I would prefer using a cross-platform toolkit, rather than relying on X - IF this is really meant to be used for FlightGear, it should at least compensate for all the weaknesses that the other major networks have - so it should preferably be possible to use it on any platform. we have FG itself, so we need to come up a protocol to help the other people squak FlightGearese, what else did I miss here? Arnt, without getting into too much detail about the recent discussions with the VATSIM/IVAO folks, I would really encourage you to think more about it and write down your ideas - currently, it doesn't sound that good for an opensource'd collaboration with either of the two networks, so if the latter remains a pre-requisite for *any* collaboration (which is my feeling), your ideas might very well become valuable ... Depending on what John & David think, I'm going to summarize the so far received feedback later: some of it makes certainly for some good entertainment ... In the meantime, here are my pre-liminary thoughts about what data FlightGear needs to make available in order to become "ATC-able" (most of it is already in the prop tree): - position (altitude), speed (V/S), heading - aircraft category (wake turbulence class) - type of aircraft regarding its appearance, to pick appropriate models within other clients - currently set squawk code - currently set radio frequency probably there's more ... It's probably worth to add your own thoughts, so that there's a "fallback" plan - it's certainly easier to make a quick stab at the ATC integration, than it is to come up with the ATC AI part ... The major disadvantage would of course be that there's no integration with existing virtual ATC networks - so, there wouldn't be any existing ATC community to really 'drive' such a FlightGear ATC project ... and even if you could attract some people, because of its opensource nature: FlightGear does certainly not have such a large user community as simulators like MS FS and X-Plane have, so this is then another drawback for potential virtual ATC controllers. In the end this would become a totally new project - nothing that could be run under FlightGear's umbrella easily, at least not if it's supposed to become 'successful' - and it's only going to become interesting for the FlightGear FLYING community if there are really people who would do the actual controlling part. Making VATSIM/IVAO people switch to something like what Arnt suggested, would really require to incorporate so many new things ...just to make the change really feasible. This is certainly beyond the scope of a FlightGear ATC *SUB* project. Boris ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
