Re: [Flightgear-devel] model-paging patch - testers wanted
On Wednesday 19 March 2008 23:27, Tim Moore wrote: I'd like to have a look over this and play with it before it's committed. I've told Till that I will start doing that tomorrow night, so hopefully it will be in before the weekend. Okay, sounds good. Cheers, Durk - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] FIXED: Re: fgfs problems after going to TwinView (2 different monitors) on Debian
Anders, Anders Gidenstam wrote: On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Holger Wirtz wrote: Anders, thanks for your answer. But this seems also not to work: --- cut here --- $ fgfs Error: Not able to create requested visual. Segmentation fault $ --- cut here --- What does gl-info say? Does other OpenGL applications work? Maybe also try different --bpp and --geometry settings to fgfs. And have a look on the output of xdpyinfo to see if it looks strange. I've used fgfs and TwinView in different configurations on my box, but it was some time ago (and possibly before FGFS/OSG). Ok, I got it! The option --enable-clouds3d was the problem... Thanks for your help! Great - now I have a real good view on a 2960x1050 display. I just have to exchange to old TFT with the second new wide screen in the corner... :-) Regards, Holger Cheers, Anders - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- # ## ## Holger Wirtz Phone : (+49 30) 884299-40 ## ## ## ### ## DFN-Verein Fax : (+49 30) 884299-70 ## ## ## Stresemannstr. 78E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## ## ## ## ### 10963 Berlin # ## ## ## GERMANY WWW : http://www.dfn.de GPG-Fingerprint: ABFA 1F51 DD8D 503C 85DC 0C51 E961 79E2 6685 9BCF - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] CVS - Data Re-organisation
* Vivian Meazza -- Wednesday 19 March 2008: A few days ago the data in cvs was reorganised with several directories being moved from Models to AI/Aircraft. As I said already in a direct reply to the cvslogs message, I also consider that a bad and uninformed move. The AI/ dir was created as a place to keep cheap versions of detailed (and thus slow over MP) models. It was *not* meant to dump everything in it that *can* be used over MP in one way or another. This commit has no advantages whatsoever, but breaks the concept. That it was done without any communication (that I'm aware of) is quite disturbing. Not even the author and mantainer of the models was asked. Reverting seems like the obivous fix. And people who feel like reorganizing *other* *people's* *stuff* should better discuss that before. The developers list and IRC are the places where this is supposed to happen. m. - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Sound problem stops FG start
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:46:36 +0100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Sound problem stops FG start LeeE wrote: That _is_ strange re getting it with the UFO. What happens if you remove the mkvii instrument entirely? Can you play the sample separately - through xmms, or whatever media player you use? Can you play _any_ sound samples at all? Is it just with FG that you get this problem? This is probably an oOpenAL problem. I had something similar this week with FlightGear 1.0 which turned out to be a local OpenAL problem. Worst case; your OpenAL isn't 64-bit ready yet. I am running in 32bit mode on a duel core cpu.I have tried disabling sound before running but that does not seem to work.It would seem that the audio on my motherboard is usb audio now what effect that has on everything I dont know.I just know that at present my sound is not audable.I can see it running in totem but no sound from speakers.I guess I will wait for Ubuntu Hardy to arrive and try to get everything working from there. I would suggest running OpenAL without any backend (null device or something) to see if it helps. Erik Cheers Innis _ It's simple! Sell your car for just $30 at CarPoint.com.au http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fsecure%2Dau%2Eimrworldwide%2Ecom%2Fcgi%2Dbin%2Fa%2Fci%5F450304%2Fet%5F2%2Fcg%5F801459%2Fpi%5F1004813%2Fai%5F859641_t=762955845_r=tig_OCT07_m=EXT - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] model-paging patch - testers wanted
On Wednesday 19 March 2008 16:50, Vivian Meazza wrote: [snip...] Remember: release early, release often. I nearly said that - and chickened out at the last minute - yes - I support this. V. Heh - I really don't like that phrase. It may sound 'cool' but to me it's saying 'design by trial and error', which is an oxymoron:) I also think it does nothing to encourage quality and is likely to increase the number of bugs that will be encountered by people who are trying to use the s/w, or who are trying to develop for it. All in all, I regard it as a bit of a cop-out by developers who are too lazy to thoroughly think things through and, with regard to commercial s/w, a method of extorting money for faulty goods. It certainly doesn't encourage confidence that the s/w will work and as FG isn't just an academic exercise in s/w development - a lot of people and groups are using it for a very wide range of purposes - I can't agree that it's a good idea. Sure - new features and developments have to be beta-tested in a wider environment, and cvs is right for that, but not for alpha testing. Just a personal view:) OK, Lee - yes, no alpha testing. In this particular case the patch is well into beta. The alpha testing was done by me and others. I hope that you will test it. And as a carrot, the quicker this is done, the quicker we can move on to getting the other goodies and bug fixes into cvs. Vivian Hi Vivian, snipped most of the post because it was _only_ that phrase, and the design/development philosophy that it implied to me, that I was really referring to. I've no problem with the patch itself - I've been following the discussions about it and agree with you that it seems to have been adequately alpha-tested by several people without hitting problems, so re this specific patch - yes, it's time to think about putting it in cvs so that it can now be more widely beta-tested:) As for me alpha-testing it - well, it's not really my area of expertise, operation or interest. I'm not going to try to pretend that I have any real expertise in debugging C++ design code when there are many more people working on the project who do have the requisite skills. Because working on the FG code isn't an area where I can really offer anything, I don't try to operate in that area. If those two points are accepted, and while there's plenty of other areas related to the FG project that I feel I can offer something, I don't feel too bad about not being interested in participating in areas where I can't. I guess I'm saying that I'd rather stick to areas where I believe I have some competence rather than cloud the water in areas where I'm not:) LeeE - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Sound problem stops FG start
On Thursday 20 March 2008 01:41, Innis Cunningham wrote: Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Sound problem stops FG start On Wednesday 19 March 2008 15:15, Innis Cunningham wrote: On Wednesday 19 March 2008 11:29, Innis Cunningham wrote: Hi All Have installed FG 9.10 on Ubuntu 7.10 on a 64bit machine running 32bit OS. I get this line when FG quits at installing subsystems Error loading MK VIII sound sample application-data-base-failed.wav: Failed to load wav file: I have checked openalrc for the following. (define devices '(alsa)) (define alsa-out-device plug:dmix) And they are present.I tried running with sound disabled and with the sound bits edited out of the preferences.xml but still it aborts with the above error. I have FG 9.10 on my 32 bit system and it runs fine. How can I get around this problem I just want to see how FG goes on my 64bit system I dont care if there is sound or not. T.I.A Cheers Innis Well, as a stop-gap work-around I guess you could remove or substitute the references to it in the mkviii 3d instrument. NP with it here though, on 32bit sw hw (Debian etch). LeeE Thanks Lee I dont have any problem either with it on the various 32bit copies I have running on my 32 bit machine it has only appeared on the 32bit copy I have on my 64 bit machine. The thing is I was trying to start with the UFO and it has no instruments. What would be calling this file. Cheers Innis Thanks again Lee That _is_ strange re getting it with the UFO. What happens if you remove the mkvii instrument entirely? Removing the mkviii did not fix the problem.Is there somewhere I can disable the request for the above file or is it hard coded in the fgfs.bin.I dont see anywhere in the preferences file to disable it. Can you play the sample separately - through xmms, or whatever media player you use? Can you play _any_ sound samples at all? Is it just with FG that you get this problem? Well I cant hear it being played but I can see it being played without problem. It appears my default sound is usb audio maybe I should try disabling it in the bios and see if it reverts to pci sound. The thing is the sound on my 32bit machine is faulty but FG just ignores it and starts.Maybe FG is looking for a pci sound card and when it does not find it it bails out Heh - sorry about sounding like an interrogation:) Not at all.Thanks for your help.This seems to be the price to pay for more modern hardware LeeE Cheers Innis Hi Innis, first of all, I just noticed that your replies are including e-mail addresses - if they're not obfuscated in the mailing list archives they'll be harvested for spam. Could you check your e-mailer settings to make sure they're not included in the body of the posting? Re the sound problem - If you get an identical error, referring to exactly the same file, after removing the mkviii folder it implies to me that the mkviii relies upon code that's been built into FG and it's been done in such a way that it means that the FG code consequently requires the mkviii folder to run, even if it's not used. Therefore, you've got to fix your OpenAL, which is what Eric said. LeeE - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Scenery 1.0.0 coastline is not processed
On jeu 20 mars 2008, Alex Romosan wrote: Ralf Gerlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scenery V1.0.0 has been built using VMAP0 landmass and shoreline data. scenery v0.9.8 was also built with the vmap0 landmass and shoreline data. looking at: http://mapserver.flightgear.org/openlayers_sfobay.html?zoom=13lat=37.86284 lon=-122.28796layers=B0TFFTFTT (this is the bay area). i am not really sure how to interpret the colours but if you look at the berkeley coastline in v1.0.0 you'll see that the berkeley marina is missing, big chunks of alameda are also missing, and so on. on the above map it looks like the actual coast is outlined in a red line, then there is some white (same as the water) and then there are the red and green chunks (which is the scenery in v1.0.0). the berkeley marina is present in 0.9.8 (but it disappeared in subsequent scenery releases). something is wrong (and it's been wrong for a long time). it will be interesting to compare the current algorithm with the one used to generate the coastline in 0.9.8 to try to understand why all these things have disappeared. --alex-- Hello, Regarding Hong-KongLat 22.296 deg and Lon 113.898 here are snapshots: That one from mapserver.flightgear.org http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/mapserver.flightgear.org_Hong-Kong.jpg That one with 0.9.8 scenery http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/Scenery-0.9.8_Hong-Kong.jpg And That one with 1.00 scenery http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/Scenery-1.00_Hong-Kong.jpg You could notice that apt VHHH is now , not an island but on full ground area Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
On Wednesday 19 March 2008 20:58, Gijs de Rooy wrote: Hi all, Tonight we've had kind of discussion on the in-game-chat about the idea to seperate playing and flying in different MP-servers. First lets see why we want it: - Most of the time half of all the pilots online at the server(s) isn't flying according to the reality. These pilots are testing, crashing, (trying to) block taxiways etc. Pilots that wanna fly could ignore these people, but the fact is that more pilots would cause more and longer/larger lags. - Pilots, like I've noted in the text above, are ignoring (or opposing) the instructions given by the Tower Controller. Thats anyoning for the ATCer and for the other pilots. Pilots following instructions and aviation rules don't know when a plane is coming to close, driving on the runway or something like that if they should react (because if they don't it would cause a crash in reallife) or not (if the pilots are just amateurs that are crossing runways without clearence etc. the real-pilots don't need to avoid them because it wont cause a crash in real). - There are several more reasons, but I think these two are the most important. There are two solutions: - Fly at other places/airports than KSFO (or other places where people are messing around). This will reduce the lag, because you're out of reach for the amateur planes. But chat will be visible (because it's spread around a large area. So this is no solution for the ATC problems and we don't wanna be banned to other places because our wish to fly real. - Seperated servers is the best solution I think. We could have a server for realistic flying and one for gaming. The realistic-server will be populated by ATCers and pilots that are (trying to) follow(ing) the aviation rules etc. The gaming-server is for pilots that wanna fly without ATC and any rules. Pilots are free to fly, crash, hijack, block taxiways etc. at this server.Thanks for your patience to read this text. I hope you agree with me, I like to hear all your opinions. Gijs de Rooy PH-GYS www.flightgear.nl.tp I think this is a valid issue. As a final bit of testing I do some flying on mp, to check for mp specific problems, but doing that under instruction from ATC isn't really viable. While I try to not cause problems for other users I can see that having someone else randomly whizzing about while you're trying to do serious stuff is going to be a little distracting at the very least. At one time there were separate mp systems for users and development (using port 5002 instead of 5000) and I could do my testing using the development mp system and populating it, if necessary, using some of my other systems here at home to run mp drones. The trouble is though, running another mp system needs more resources, not only in server bandwidth but also maintenance etc, so I can understand why it was dropped. I could use a different airport, somewhere away from KSFO, and populate that area with a few mp drones, but as well as adding an extra three or four aircraft to the current mp system, instead of just one, I'd not be able to test the effects of the KSFO scenery, which is a big factor just in itself. Dunno - no solutions here:( LeeE - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Scenery 1.0.0 coastline is not processed
On jeu 20 mars 2008, gerard robin wrote: On jeu 20 mars 2008, Alex Romosan wrote: Ralf Gerlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scenery V1.0.0 has been built using VMAP0 landmass and shoreline data. scenery v0.9.8 was also built with the vmap0 landmass and shoreline data. looking at: http://mapserver.flightgear.org/openlayers_sfobay.html?zoom=13lat=37.862 84 lon=-122.28796layers=B0TFFTFTT (this is the bay area). i am not really sure how to interpret the colours but if you look at the berkeley coastline in v1.0.0 you'll see that the berkeley marina is missing, big chunks of alameda are also missing, and so on. on the above map it looks like the actual coast is outlined in a red line, then there is some white (same as the water) and then there are the red and green chunks (which is the scenery in v1.0.0). the berkeley marina is present in 0.9.8 (but it disappeared in subsequent scenery releases). something is wrong (and it's been wrong for a long time). it will be interesting to compare the current algorithm with the one used to generate the coastline in 0.9.8 to try to understand why all these things have disappeared. --alex-- Hello, Regarding Hong-KongLat 22.296 deg and Lon 113.898 here are snapshots: That one from mapserver.flightgear.org http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/mapserver.flightgear.org_Hong-Kong.jpg That one with 0.9.8 scenery http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/Scenery-0.9.8_Hong-Kong.jpg And That one with 1.00 scenery http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/Scenery-1.00_Hong-Kong.jpg You could notice that apt VHHH is now , not an island but on full ground area Cheers And with 0.9.10 which is not so good than 0.9.8 about Hong Kong bay (we don't see it here), but in any case better than 1.00 http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/Scenery-0.9.9_Hong-Kong.jpg -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Sound problem stops FG start
Hi Lee Hi Innis, first of all, I just noticed that your replies are including e-mail addresses - if they're not obfuscated in the mailing list archives they'll be harvested for spam. Could you check your e-mailer settings to make sure they're not included in the body of the posting? I am not sure what you mean I use hotmail what are you seeing that I should look into. Re the sound problem - If you get an identical error, referring to exactly the same file, after removing the mkviii folder it implies to me that the mkviii relies upon code that's been built into FG and it's been done in such a way that it means that the FG code consequently requires the mkviii folder to run, even if it's not used. I have got my sound working now so I can hear the sounds as well as see them playing but still FG bails out with the same error. As this was a Ubuntu package that I installed I would have though it would have worked.But does OpenAL need a 64 bit version to work with a 64bit CPU.As I say I do not have this problem running this same package on a 32bit machine Therefore, you've got to fix your OpenAL, which is what Eric said. LeeE Thanks again for your help and let me know about the email problem as I am no guru in this area. Cheers Innis _ It's simple! Sell your car for just $30 at CarPoint.com.au http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fsecure%2Dau%2Eimrworldwide%2Ecom%2Fcgi%2Dbin%2Fa%2Fci%5F450304%2Fet%5F2%2Fcg%5F801459%2Fpi%5F1004813%2Fai%5F859641_t=762955845_r=tig_OCT07_m=EXT - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, LeeE wrote: I think this is a valid issue. As a final bit of testing I do some flying on mp, to check for mp specific problems, but doing that under instruction from ATC isn't really viable. While I try to not cause problems for other users I can see that having someone else randomly whizzing about while you're trying to do serious stuff is going to be a little distracting at the very least. Hi, One observation is that maybe you don't have to do your tests at KSFO :) I often use my local airport ESGP or KNUQ for testing (but admittedly this is mostly because the heavy traffic at KSFO tends to slow my box to a crawl). At one time there were separate mp systems for users and development (using port 5002 instead of 5000) and I could do my testing using the development mp system and populating it, if necessary, using some of my other systems here at home to run mp drones. The trouble is though, running another mp system needs more resources, not only in server bandwidth but also maintenance etc, so I can understand why it was dropped. We still have the port 5002 network up, though with less mpservers than the port 5000 one. Currently mpserver02 and mpserver06 seems to be the only ones on the 5002 network. mpserver01 is probably also there but it's port 5002 fgms seems unresponsive. I could use a different airport, somewhere away from KSFO, and populate that area with a few mp drones, but as well as adding an extra three or four aircraft to the current mp system, instead of just one, I'd not be able to test the effects of the KSFO scenery, which is a big factor just in itself. Remember, MP data isn't forwarded to clients out of sight (well, 50nm out of sight to be precise), so moving to a less populated area saves server bandwidth (your data isn't forwarded to the other clients and theirs isn't forwarded to you). Cheers, Anders -- --- Anders Gidenstam mail: anders(at)gidenstam.org WWW: http://www.gidenstam.org/FlightGear/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
Am Donnerstag 20 März 2008 14:29 schrieb Anders Gidenstam: We still have the port 5002 network up, though with less mpservers than the port 5000 one. Currently mpserver02 and mpserver06 seems to be the only ones on the 5002 network. mpserver01 is probably also there but it's port 5002 fgms seems unresponsive. mpserver01:5002 is up and running. It's just... broken. While introducing new classes and testing new stuff I also introduced new bugs ;) - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] CVS - Data Re-organisation
On mer 19 mars 2008, Vivian Meazza wrote: Hi all, A few days ago the data in cvs was reorganised with several directories being moved from Models to AI/Aircraft. This not only broke the carriers (because the move wasn't completed correctly), and lumped ships and aircraft in the same directory, but also misunderstood the purpose of the AI/Aircraft directory. This is intended to hold lightweight models for use by the AI Traffic Manager and Multiplayer, usually, but not exclusively, in the form of xml wrappers which actually point elsewhere, either to the appropriate Aircraft or Models directory. It was not intended to be a heap for anything which didn't fit conveniently elsewhere. This change has neither been discussed nor agreed. Subject to there being no substantive objections here, I intend to revert this change over the coming weekend. This has been discussed with and agreed upon by fellow core developers, This is also the consensus view on *IRC*. Now, this probably isn't the best solution, and putting ships under Models/Geometry is, to say the least, a bit eccentric. So we can work on deriving a better answer, once we have got back the status quo ante. Vivian Ships are objects like any others. Since i am working (very slowly :( ) on carriers and others military ships from the French Navy, i can see the advantage to keep it in Models/Geometry. I am wondering about to use the same models (with livery variant) including it at some specific places (harbour) or randomly on the sea. So they won't be, only, managed with AI/Scenario. Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Gijs de Rooy wrote: Tonight we've had kind of discussion on the in-game-chat about the idea to seperate playing and flying in different MP-servers. I'm a little late here, but just wanted to weigh in that I think this a pretty good idea ... there's no harm in trying it out. In a perfectly free world, there'd be no reason I can think of why anyone couldn't start their own separate MP server if they wanted to. As you point out, clearly the default MP world is a giant free for all. I think the default advertised MP server(s) will and should be like that. This is the playground for all those that are trying FlightGear for the first time, or trying a new plane for the first time, or testing something, or whatever. A serious MP server for those that want to do their best to follow real aviation procedures and rules makes a lot of sense ... these procedures and real world rules would need to be honored as best as possible. We still need to allow for honest mistakes since I believe that most people involved in this project are not licensed full scale pilots, and real lives are not at stake if a mistake is made. We would need to keep that all in proper perspective. I'm also involved in building FAA certified simulators for real pilot training. So having a super serious MP server where mistakes are treated very harshly might be a fun thing to setup someday as well. I can think of several other situations where a private or semi-private server would be useful. One question this may eventually lead to, is do we want to add some simple password authentication scheme in our MP protocol so that MP server admins can control who participates on their server? It's nice to live in a world where everyone chooses to act nice, but as FG grows and as our MP usage grows, some sort of authentication scheme might become an unfortunate necessity to prevent willful abuse. So to summarize: We definitely want to maintain a default MP system that is open and free for all to join. But if someone wants to setup a specialized MP server for a special purpose, I don't think that even needs to be discussed. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
Hello, Ofcourse we need to keep the current free-flying servers open for all kind of pilots.The special real-aviation (RA) server may be maintaned/controlled by some moderators like Curt proposed. If we have password acces theres the possibility to do some kind of test before you may enter the server? And when someone is not using the RA-server as it's used to be he/she could be banned for some time. There are always the open servers left to fly on if you're not longer welcome on the RA-server. But I don't think this will happens often. The playing-pilots aren't doing anything wrong, there's just no seperation in the servers, so they've no place to do what they want. I know some people that really like FlightGear, but because the missing of a RA-server they don't wanna use FlightGear. It's one step further to a reallife based FlightSimulator, like we want. What is needed to set up a MP-server? If we know what we need we could search for it. Thanks, Gijs _ Probeer Live Search: de zoekmachine van de makers van MSN! http://www.live.com/?searchOnly=true- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Sound problem stops FG start
On Thursday 20 March 2008 13:29, Innis Cunningham wrote: Hi Lee Hi Innis, first of all, I just noticed that your replies are including e-mail addresses - if they're not obfuscated in the mailing list archives they'll be harvested for spam. Could you check your e-mailer settings to make sure they're not included in the body of the posting? I am not sure what you mean I use hotmail what are you seeing that I should look into. That's odd. This one has come through without the e-mail addresses in the body. Have a look at your copies of this thread and check your sent folder to see if you can see them in your first reply to me, posted at 15:15 on 2008-03-19, then re-quoted in my reply back to you at 15:35 on 2008-03-19. Then finally, it's all quoted again when you replied at 01:41 on 2008-03-20. Strange, but there's a reason for it somewhere. Hasn't happened this time, so it's more of a curiosity than a problem. Re the sound problem - If you get an identical error, referring to exactly the same file, after removing the mkviii folder it implies to me that the mkviii relies upon code that's been built into FG and it's been done in such a way that it means that the FG code consequently requires the mkviii folder to run, even if it's not used. I have got my sound working now so I can hear the sounds as well as see them playing but still FG bails out with the same error. As this was a Ubuntu package that I installed I would have though it would have worked.But does OpenAL need a 64 bit version to work with a 64bit CPU.As I say I do not have this problem running this same package on a 32bit machine Therefore, you've got to fix your OpenAL, which is what Eric said. LeeE Thanks again for your help and let me know about the email problem as I am no guru in this area. Cheers Innis Heh:) - I'm no guru either. Did you fix the sound by installing new/updated OpenAL packages? If so, have you re-compiled everything to pick up the new packages? LeeE - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Gijs de Rooy wrote: What is needed to set up a MP-server? If we know what we need we could search for it. Hi, Something along these lines: A linux box with a good network connection. And the server software FGMS http://fgms.sourceforge.net/ FGMS can probably be built and run on most Unix like systems (but it might be more or less painful.. :) mpserver06, which I run, is a very old Sun workstation running Solaris. It is more than powerful enough for the network connection it has, but to collect the build dependencies is a pain. (I have not managed to build a newer FGMS than last summer's, but at this time that is still fine.) There is currently no access control what so ever in FGMS but access control can be implemented separately, e.g. using packet filtering and some kind of web based session login that can update the filter rules. I suspect someone reasonably at home with web services can cobble together something simple but working for a Linux based host in a fairly short time. Cheers, Anders -- --- Anders Gidenstam mail: anders(at)gidenstam.org WWW: http://www.gidenstam.org/FlightGear/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Anders Gidenstam wrote: There is currently no access control what so ever in FGMS but access control can be implemented separately, e.g. using packet filtering and some kind of web based session login that can update the filter rules. I suspect someone reasonably at home with web services can cobble together something simple but working for a Linux based host in a fairly short time. An even simpler alternative might be to extend FGMS to use a white-list of accepted IPs (better) or callsigns and let the web login stuff update the white-list. A quite ugly but simple idea is to have FGMS read the list every x seconds. Cheers, Anders -- --- Anders Gidenstam mail: anders(at)gidenstam.org WWW: http://www.gidenstam.org/FlightGear/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Gijs de Rooy wrote: Hello, Ofcourse we need to keep the current free-flying servers open for all kind of pilots.The special real-aviation (RA) server may be maintaned/controlled by some moderators like Curt proposed. If we have password acces theres the possibility to do some kind of test before you may enter the server? And when someone is not using the RA-server as it's used to be he/she could be banned for some time. There are always the open servers left to fly on if you're not longer welcome on the RA-server. But I don't think this will happens often. The playing-pilots aren't doing anything wrong, there's just no seperation in the servers, so they've no place to do what they want. I know some people that really like FlightGear, but because the missing of a RA-server they don't wanna use FlightGear. It's one step further to a reallife based FlightSimulator, like we want. What is needed to set up a MP-server? Also, where can one download MP-server sources from? As I mentioned before, we have a server in Germany hanging on 100 mbit with spare resources where we could host an MP-server. If setting up a second network for professional users means we need more servers, just let me know. Tibor Palinkas Allied-Visions GmbH - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
On Thursday 20 March 2008 15:36, Gijs de Rooy wrote: Hello, Ofcourse we need to keep the current free-flying servers open for all kind of pilots.The special real-aviation (RA) server may be maintaned/controlled by some moderators like Curt proposed. If we have password acces theres the possibility to do some kind of test before you may enter the server? And when someone is not using the RA-server as it's used to be he/she could be banned for some time. There are always the open servers left to fly on if you're not longer welcome on the RA-server. But I don't think this will happens often. The playing-pilots aren't doing anything wrong, there's just no seperation in the servers, so they've no place to do what they want. I know some people that really like FlightGear, but because the missing of a RA-server they don't wanna use FlightGear. It's one step further to a reallife based FlightSimulator, like we want. What is needed to set up a MP-server? If we know what we need we could search for it. Thanks, Gijs I think a dedicated and access-controlled RA mp server, if people are prepared to make the resources available, is probably the best solution and it would mean that the RA fliers get a reduced traffic load on their system, which can't be a bad thing:) Testers could then continue using the default mp system where a high traffic load is desirable (if you're testing something there's no point in giving it an easy time) A quick and dirty way of controlling access to a RA server could be to run it on an unannounced port for each session. To join a session you'd have to e-mail whoever is doing ATC to obtain the port number. Of course, if someone was really desperate to annoy serious fliers they could port scan the server, but it would stop casual mp fliers and testers from unintentionally interfering with serious fliers. LeeE - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Anders Gidenstam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Gijs de Rooy wrote: What is needed to set up a MP-server? If we know what we need we could search for it. Hi, Something along these lines: A linux box with a good network connection. And the server software FGMS http://fgms.sourceforge.net/ FGMS can probably be built and run on most Unix like systems (but it might be more or less painful.. :) mpserver06, which I run, is a very old Sun workstation running Solaris. It is more than powerful enough for the network connection it has, but to collect the build dependencies is a pain. (I have not managed to build a newer FGMS than last summer's, but at this time that is still fine.) There is currently no access control what so ever in FGMS but access control can be implemented separately, e.g. using packet filtering and some kind of web based session login that can update the filter rules. I suspect someone reasonably at home with web services can cobble together something simple but working for a Linux based host in a fairly short time. Hi Anders and All, Yes, that could be done very simply at the IP data level with iptables. 1. Log into the web server which would adjust the iptables rules to allow the authenticated user to log in. - This could be either direct or using XML-RPL or SOAP to ask a remote server to do the work. 2. Server adds an iptable LOG rule to detect that the user is still connected (I'll come back to this in a bit). An ALLOW rule will also need to be added to actually allow the connections. 3. User connects to the RA server as per normally done today. Protocol does not need to change. 4. If the player hasn't been seen for a period of time (5 minutes??), then drop the LOG and ALLOW rule from iptables. Perhaps the web server needs to be told that the user has logged out. I think that would work. Unfortunately I don't have access to another computer to develop this. But should be easy enough. Personally I'd create a customer chanin to put these rules in as it will allow easy separation of your firewall rules (if required) from the temporary rules created by this system. Have fun for whoever does this. George - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Sound problem stops FG start
Hi Lee DETAILS WERE HERE On Thursday 20 March 2008 13:29, Innis Cunningham wrote: Hi Lee Hi Innis, first of all, I just noticed that your replies are including e-mail addresses - if they're not obfuscated in the mailing list archives they'll be harvested for spam. Could you check your e-mailer settings to make sure they're not included in the body of the posting? I am not sure what you mean I use hotmail what are you seeing that I should look into. That's odd. This one has come through without the e-mail addresses in the body. Have a look at your copies of this thread and check your sent folder to see if you can see them in your first reply to me, posted at 15:15 on 2008-03-19, then re-quoted in my reply back to you at 15:35 on 2008-03-19. Then finally, it's all quoted again when you replied at 01:41 on 2008-03-20. Strange, but there's a reason for it somewhere. Hasn't happened this time, so it's more of a curiosity than a problem. Ok I think I know what you are talking about there should be nothing at the top of the email were I put details were here.I have always stripped that information off when I reply but this time I was just lazy is it supposed to be stripped off automaticly.I will keep that in mind in future Re the sound problem - If you get an identical error, referring to exactly the same file, after removing the mkviii folder it implies to me that the mkviii relies upon code that's been built into FG and it's been done in such a way that it means that the FG code consequently requires the mkviii folder to run, even if it's not used. I have got my sound working now so I can hear the sounds as well as see them playing but still FG bails out with the same error. As this was a Ubuntu package that I installed I would have though it would have worked.But does OpenAL need a 64 bit version to work with a 64bit CPU.As I say I do not have this problem running this same package on a 32bit machine Therefore, you've got to fix your OpenAL, which is what Eric said. LeeE Thanks again for your help and let me know about the email problem as I am no guru in this area. Cheers Innis Heh:) - I'm no guru either. Did you fix the sound by installing new/updated OpenAL packages? If so, have you re-compiled everything to pick up the new packages? No the onboard sound I have is usb audio(new to me)I had to change some Ubuntu settings to make it work.As far as I can tell I have the correct OpenAL package for the 32bit version of of Ubuntu 7.10(gutsy)I am running.I guess I would have to force install or build from source to use a different package. I guess FG wont run if it does not OpenAL LeeE Cheers Innis _ Get MOTORAZR MAXX V6 now $249 on Next G™ Pre-Paid http://clk.atdmt.com/OAT/go/nnmsntel069034oat/direct/01/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] model-paging patch - testers wanted
Hi, I've tested this patch on Mac OS X. The result looks OK to me. By OK, I mean there seems no negative impact by this patch. About positive impact, I haven't got any since there were only 5 aircraft around KSFO while I was testing this, so I had no difference between original and patched version yet. However, it is good since it works the same as original one. I'll do further test on this with more than 10 pilots on the server, and give you feed back. Best, Tat On Mar 19, 2008, at 10:30 PM, till busch wrote: hi all, as noted earlier in another thread, i am working on a model-paging patch. i need testers! if you want flightgear multiplayer to not pause when other pilots join, you are welcome to test my patch. some people are running flightgear with my patch alredy -- feedback is very positive so far. get the files at http://flight.bux.at -modelpaging-vX.X.X-beta-flightgear.patch -modelpaging-vX.X.X-beta-simgear.patch current version is 0.4.4, but i will re-release frequently. please don't forget to provide feedback after testing for a while. i started the project at the end of february with a simple idea: move all 3d-model loading to the DatabasePager-thread. my first attempts looked promising, though they were a little too optimistic (or naive?). the patch has evolved a lot since. currently it does the following things: 1. revive SGModelLib, move functions for xml-model-loading there 2. replace all calls to sgLoad3dModel with calls to either SGModelLib::loadModel() or SGModelLib::loadPagedModel() almost all models will be loaded by the DatabasePager. the few exceptions are: your own plane, shared models in scenery, random objects, AIBallistic models. 3. simplify mode-loading functions (avoid passing around fg_root) 4. avoid supurious MatrixTransform nodes in loaded models 5. fix some memory leaks NOTE: i'm still not pushing for integration in cvs. this patch is huge and it needs more testing. a little more clean-up is also needed. cheers, - till (buti on #flightgear) - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
