On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 18:59:21 +0100, David wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Harald JOHNSEN writes:
>
> > Oliver Schroeder wrote:
> >
>
> > >2) chat messages
> > >[...]
> > >protocoll supports chat-messages and the ATC-module has functions
> > >to queue and display them on screen. So it s
Harald JOHNSEN writes:
> Oliver Schroeder wrote:
>
> >2) chat messages
> >[...]
> >protocoll supports chat-messages and the ATC-module has functions to queue
> >and display them on screen. So it should'nt be too hard to combine them and
> >enable chat-messages. Somebody willing to give it a tr
And remember that a robust implementation can get big speedups by
handling
Mostyn Gale wrote:
> Andy Ross wrote:
> > "The best way to do this is actually dynamic: the server gets to
> > send the X "most important" objects to each client per update.
> > Importance can be defined in screen space --
Am Wednesday 20 July 2005 10:46 schrieb Vivian Meazza:
> Oliver Schroeder
> > I *think* that the flightgear client is kind of to big and this kind of
> > program (lets call it "injector") does not need all of its functions. Eg.
> > there is no rendering, ATC(?), Autopilot, Audio and others needed.
Oliver Schroeder wrote:
> Am Tuesday 19 July 2005 18:05 schrieb Vivian Meazza:
>
>>Oliver Schroeder
>>
>>>3) artificial life at airports
>>>[...]
>>
>>Would a dedicated instance of FlightGear running all the AI traffic needed
>>and passing them to the server for distribution to all players do the
Oliver Schroeder wrote:
>
> I don't think it's a good idea to handle chat messages in another way then
> messages from ATC (or any other type of "conversation"). There should be one
> interface for all types of messages and every "module" (currently ATC and
> maybe chat messages in the near fu
Oliver Schroeder
> Am Tuesday 19 July 2005 18:05 schrieb Vivian Meazza:
> > Oliver Schroeder
> > > 3) artificial life at airports
> > > [...]
> > Would a dedicated instance of FlightGear running all the AI traffic
> needed
> > and passing them to the server for distribution to all players do the
>
Am Tuesday 19 July 2005 18:05 schrieb Vivian Meazza:
> Oliver Schroeder
> > 3) artificial life at airports
> > [...]
> Would a dedicated instance of FlightGear running all the AI traffic needed
> and passing them to the server for distribution to all players do the
> trick? (filtering by range if t
Am Tuesday 19 July 2005 19:27 schrieb Harald JOHNSEN:
> Oliver Schroeder wrote:
> >1) "out of reach"
> >[...]
> I think the range should be user configurable.
So it's possibly a good idea to include a similar check in the flightgear
client. The server does a precheck, i.e. does not send packets f
Ampere K. Hardraade
... snip ...
>
> > As Pigeon said, make that a separate window, because the ATC line is
> > allready nearly impossible
> > to read ;) It should not be hard to code but the atc code is not good
> > for that (anyway it does not
> > queue messages).
> I agree. That ATC line is
On July 19, 2005 06:33 am, Oliver Schroeder wrote:
> 1) "out of reach"
> . . .
This will need to apply on chat messages as well.
> 3) artificial life at airports
> . . .
There is a traffic manager in FlightGear. May be you can make use of that.
On July 19, 2005 01:27 pm, Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
Oliver Schroeder
> some of you may already have taken notice of my multiplayer server for
> flightgear (http://www.o-schroeder.de/fg_server). It's working quite well
> in
> sane environments but I want to improve it and therefor have some
> questions
> you may be able to answer.
>
... snip ...
>
> > > So the question is: How can I easily calculate the distance and how
> > > many nautical miles are "out of reach" (thinking of e.g. radar systems)
> > > ?
> >
> > You can compute distance at an altitude using SimGear functions
>
> Ack, don't even *think* about doing the math in a GIS datum.
Oliver Schroeder wrote:
1) "out of reach"
[...]
So the question is: How can I easily calculate the distance and how many
nautical miles are "out of reach" (thinking of e.g. radar systems) ?
I think the range should be user configurable.
For VFR we have a nearly hard coded limit of 10 NM f
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> Oliver Schroeder wrote:
> > So the question is: How can I easily calculate the distance and how many
> > nautical miles are "out of reach" (thinking of e.g. radar systems) ?
>
> You can compute distance at an altitude using SimGear functions
Ack, don't even *think* about
> So the question is: How can I easily calculate the distance and how many
> nautical miles are "out of reach" (thinking of e.g. radar systems) ?
It could be that VFR-equipped planes (esp. those w/o radar) only need
things within the visibility range. I don't know about airborne radars,
never flew
Quoting Oliver Schroeder :
> 1) "out of reach"
> The server receives position information of clients and thus should be able
> to calculate the distance of two given clients (measured in nautical miles,
> disregarding height) so it is able to decide if it has to send packets to a
> client or not.
Hello,
3) artificial life at airports The server gives a lot of
opportunities. One of the first things which came to my mind was
artificial traffic at airports. It should be fairly easy to write
clients in any (network capable) language which do simulate a client.
This can be simply a helicopt
18 matches
Mail list logo