Re: [6] [Flightgear-devel] IPC communication - article
The way we used to visualize a quaternion when working with them at Lockheed was as an eigen vector (just a vector pointing in some 3d direction that extends from the origin to the unit sphere surrounding the origin), and a rotation around the eigen vector. Quaternions are easier to multiply and easier to add than matrices, and they reduce the number of multiply and divide operations required on the CPU. On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 12:06:09AM -0500, Norman Vine wrote: > Mike Bonar writes: > > > > I have it. It looks like a better dead reckoning algorithm for prediction and > > extrapolation, but the math is way over my head. > > I notice they mention using quaternions in the abstract but it is probably easiest > to grasp a Matrix formulation first > http://ocw.mit.edu/13/13.49/f00/lecture-notes/all-Z-H-3.html > > Using a quat is a bit more 'elegant' but is pretty much the same thing > here is a *classic* explaining the relationship that is esp relevant to FlightGear > http://www.movesinstitute.org/~zyda/pubs/Presence.1.4.pdf > > AFAIK Most all prediction and extrapolation is done with a kalman these days > lots of *good* stuff here and also at the MIT site linked above > http://www.cs.unc.edu/~welch/kalman/ > > Norman > > > > (It's $19 from the site with out a web account). > > > > Mike > > > > On Wednesday 15 January 2003 10:39, Alex Perry wrote: > > > I'll go have a look ... > > > > > > > Message: 3 > > > > Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 20:14:15 -0600 > > > > From: Mike Bonar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] IPC communication for FlightGear > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > Anyone have an IEEE membership? > > > > > > > > http://www.computer.org/proceedings/ds-rt/1053/10530045abs.htm > > > > > > ___ > > > Flightgear-devel mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > > > > > > > -- > > Linux 2.4.19, P4 1.5, 512MB, Geoforce 3 > > Trim for 60, carb heat on, fuel on, electricals on, throttle open one quarter, > > turn to start... > > > > ___ > > Flightgear-devel mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > > > > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- // .--=, .::://.. (o O & [EMAIL PROTECTED] ////://://:/:://::||_// / V K ::////:/:|//'/' // _,|' r , 'qk :'''/ // / // |_// // ||.'~. .~`, kls \_/-=\_/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] status of open bugs at sourceforge.net/projects/flightgear?
Gene Buckle writes: > > > > > > So, that don't impresses her much? > > > > > > Erik > > > > No. But Shania helped me discover a better approach... > > > You wear leopard print dresses? *gd&r* Jon was up here in MN one time so we got together for breakfast. Imagine our horrer when we showed up in the same leapard print dress. :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] IPC communication - article
Mike Bonar writes: > > I have it. It looks like a better dead reckoning algorithm for prediction and > extrapolation, but the math is way over my head. I notice they mention using quaternions in the abstract but it is probably easiest to grasp a Matrix formulation first http://ocw.mit.edu/13/13.49/f00/lecture-notes/all-Z-H-3.html Using a quat is a bit more 'elegant' but is pretty much the same thing here is a *classic* explaining the relationship that is esp relevant to FlightGear http://www.movesinstitute.org/~zyda/pubs/Presence.1.4.pdf AFAIK Most all prediction and extrapolation is done with a kalman these days lots of *good* stuff here and also at the MIT site linked above http://www.cs.unc.edu/~welch/kalman/ Norman > (It's $19 from the site with out a web account). > > Mike > > On Wednesday 15 January 2003 10:39, Alex Perry wrote: > > I'll go have a look ... > > > > > Message: 3 > > > Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 20:14:15 -0600 > > > From: Mike Bonar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] IPC communication for FlightGear > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Anyone have an IEEE membership? > > > > > > http://www.computer.org/proceedings/ds-rt/1053/10530045abs.htm > > > > ___ > > Flightgear-devel mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > > > > -- > Linux 2.4.19, P4 1.5, 512MB, Geoforce 3 > Trim for 60, carb heat on, fuel on, electricals on, throttle open one quarter, > turn to start... > > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] IPC communication - article
I have it. It looks like a better dead reckoning algorithm for prediction and extrapolation, but the math is way over my head. Contact me if you wish to try our little grey cells on it ;-) (It's $19 from the site with out a web account). Mike On Wednesday 15 January 2003 10:39, Alex Perry wrote: > I'll go have a look ... > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 20:14:15 -0600 > > From: Mike Bonar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] IPC communication for FlightGear > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Anyone have an IEEE membership? > > > > http://www.computer.org/proceedings/ds-rt/1053/10530045abs.htm > > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > -- Linux 2.4.19, P4 1.5, 512MB, Geoforce 3 Trim for 60, carb heat on, fuel on, electricals on, throttle open one quarter, turn to start... ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] IRC?
Do we ever get together in IRC to discuss these ideas in realtime? Mike -- Linux 2.4.19, P4 1.5, 512MB, Geoforce 3 Trim for 60, carb heat on, fuel on, electricals on, throttle open one quarter, turn to start... ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Possible source for usable code
Has anyone seen this site before? Might be some usable code there. http://websimulations.com/products.htm Mike -- Linux 2.4.19, P4 1.5, 512MB, Geoforce 3 Trim for 60, carb heat on, fuel on, electricals on, throttle open one quarter, turn to start... ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Roadmap/brain dump
David, > If any developers have buildings they'd like to share, that would be > great; otherwise, I'll probably base any models on actual photos. Just a quick update. I looked up (free) MSFS add-ons for KSFO, and I only found one which was for FS98. Besides that, it was part of a former payware package (airport 2000), which certianly wouldn't help us much. I mailed the author (Aaron Seymour, I hope he's still well and on the net) and will stay tuned if anything comes out of it. If he agrees, we could also try our *.bgl loader on it...not sure if that would work, though. Regards, Michael -- Michael Basler, Jena, Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geocities.com/pmb.geo/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] OZ project
I saw some information on a display system being developed, and thought that someone might be interested in seeing if it could be implemented in flightgear. see: http://www.coginst.uwf.edu and specifically http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/projects/oz/install.htm jj
[Flightgear-devel] IPC communication - article
I'll go have a look ... > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 20:14:15 -0600 > From: Mike Bonar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] IPC communication for FlightGear > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Anyone have an IEEE membership? > > http://www.computer.org/proceedings/ds-rt/1053/10530045abs.htm ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] status of open bugs at sourceforge.net/projects/flightgear ?
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 07:49:52 -0800 (PST) Gene Buckle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, that don't impresses her much? > > Erik No. But Shania helped me discover a better approach... You wear leopard print dresses? *gd&r* What the ... ?! I thought I turned that webcam off at home! ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] status of open bugs at sourceforge.net/projects/flightgear?
> > > > So, that don't impresses her much? > > > > Erik > > No. But Shania helped me discover a better approach... > You wear leopard print dresses? *gd&r* g. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] status of open bugs at sourceforge.net/projects/flightgear?
Erik Hofman writes: > > I always heard that rocket scientists say, "It's not exactly brain > > surgery." But then what to neurosurgens say? Probably something like > > "It's only brain surgery..." > > Or: It's not exactly computer science? It's not exactly golf. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] status of open bugs at sourceforge.net/projects/flightgear ?
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I always heard that rocket scientists say, "It's not exactly brain > surgery." But then what to neurosurgens say? Probably something like > "It's only brain surgery..." > Rocket science, "I'm stupid" T-shirts, and John Deere hats? Hehe. This should discourage anyone else from daring to ask about sf.net :-) BTW, for the more fashionable (in Maine where the rednecks are smarter): http://checkout.verisign.com/cgi-bin/ePages.storefront/3e24bbe80157a316271dc0a801380654/Export/products/156420-2D1669627 This item has the dual combined feature of stylishly covering your head and blaze orange color to protect oneself from becoming an accident during hunting season. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] status of open bugs at sourceforge.net/projects/flightgear ?
> I always heard that rocket scientists say, "It's not exactly brain > surgery." But then what to neurosurgens say? Probably something like > "It's only brain surgery..." Maybe neurosurgeons say: "It's not exactly female psychology". ;-) [with apologies to the women who might be reading this!] - anonymous smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Re: [Flightgear-devel] status of open bugs at sourceforge.net/projects/flightgear?
Curtis L. Olson wrote: I always heard that rocket scientists say, "It's not exactly brain surgery." But then what to neurosurgens say? Probably something like "It's only brain surgery..." Or: It's not exactly computer science? Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] status of open bugs at sourceforge.net/projects/flightgear ?
David Megginson writes: > Curtis L. Olson writes: > > > Assuming all y'alls (plural form of y'all) are pretty good at your > > jobs, "It's not exactly rocket science" just doesn't have that same > > ring to it. > > I've always said that rocket science isn't exactly rocket science > either. Hell, most of the science involved is just Newtonian > physics (not that I understand it, but I'm not a rocket scientist in > either sense of the word). I always heard that rocket scientists say, "It's not exactly brain surgery." But then what to neurosurgens say? Probably something like "It's only brain surgery..." Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] status of open bugs at sourceforge.net/projects/flightgear ?
> > So, that don't impresses her much? > > Erik No. But Shania helped me discover a better approach... ;-) smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Displaced thresholds (was: RE: [Flightgear-devel]Roadmap/brain dump)
Jon Stockill writes: > > Then, late, you can specify rules for which ones get included or > > excluded in a build (i.e. the DAFIF KSFO and the X-Plane KSFO are > > treated as different, mutually-exclusive airports). > > Hmmm It seems like that's just putting off the problem - but it would > mean we could actually get the data in the system. Actually, it's a virtuous circle -- it puts off the problem *and* it's The Right Way To Do It (at least, it's the way a good DBA would handle it). Never pour concrete all over your data until the last possible second. You can create a third table of virtual airports pointing to either the DAFIF or the XPlane description for each one, and this table can be manually tweaked to refine the automatic merge. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Roadmap/brain dump
Mike Bonar writes: > Can you elaborate on the XML GUI support a bit. I have spent the last two > months bringing myself up to speed on XML for a RL project (I know, two > months=total newbie), and I might have enough airspeed to at least get me > into ground effect with GUI development. Thx. It's fairly simple now -- just dialogs with text fields and buttons. You can look at $FG_ROOT/gui/winds.xml for a simple example. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Displaced thresholds (was: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Roadmap/brain dump)
David Luff writes: > Yes, the x-plane way really screws the rendering up now that yellow > lines are added. However, the amount of work that has gone into > specifying the taxiways and aprons at major airports must be *huge* > - it would take a long time to replicate it with a better system. Agreed -- we would need to support both, probably for a very long time. We could probably extract some intelligence from the X-plane scheme automatically, but we would still need a lot of hand-tweaking. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] status of open bugs at sourceforge.net/projects/flightgear ?
Curtis L. Olson writes: > Assuming all y'alls (plural form of y'all) are pretty good at your > jobs, "It's not exactly rocket science" just doesn't have that same > ring to it. I've always said that rocket science isn't exactly rocket science either. Hell, most of the science involved is just Newtonian physics (not that I understand it, but I'm not a rocket scientist in either sense of the word). All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Roadmap/brain dump
Michael Basler writes: > We also might look into what's already been done for FS2002 (or below). Even > if we can't get actual developers of (PD) add-on Scenery on board for > FlightGear, we might profit from their knowledge. I am pretty sure, there > are several developers of (free) add-ons with terminal maps Thanks. The terminal and gate maps are not a problem -- this information is trivially easy to get for any U.S. airport. From these maps, I can get the placement of buildings and their x/y dimensions, but I cannot get any z (height) dimensions or anything about their physical appearance. > Not sure if this approach will work, but might be worth a try. If > you think it's reasonable, I might check what's available for > FS2002 from a few sites I know and give you a digest. If any developers have buildings they'd like to share, that would be great; otherwise, I'll probably base any models on actual photos. Thanks, and all the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: SB/[open ATC protocol] client for FlightGear (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] IPC communication for FlightGear)
--- Mathew McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 January 2003 23:14, ace project wrote:
>
> > A squakbox add-on would be a great, Matthew.
>
> There's a problem there, I've ended up considering
> either:
> 1) Reverse engineering the Simclients protocol (used
> by SB and Procontroller).
> Simclients won't give me information on the protocol
> without signing a NDA.
> 2) Developing a open protocol. This can be a better
> option, but at some times,
> a bit of a gamble. It would have to be LGPL'ed, but
> on the plus side, anyone
> wanting to create a ATC client for any sim can do
> so.
>
The network modules works outside the ATC at this
time.
The protocols I use are documented a little bit, which
can be found at
htp://people.zeelandnet.nl/liono/ace/mpe/mpe.htm
A stand alone client will not be continued further at
this time because this client would not to the
scenery, but there is code in place to fascilitate
this later.
If the standalone client should be maintained say it
now, so I will do it (will only introduce more
#defines).
> Developing a ATC client for FGFS is a good solution
> both Short and Long term
> (saying that no one with a copy of FS2002 uses it
> these days because of it's
> interactive ATC)
>
> * The aircraft type. Can someone suggest a default
> aircraft type if FlightGear
> doesn't have a suitable matching aircraft (aircraft
> info is sent as a ICAO
> 4-character code. I don't want to redefine every
> FGFS FDM so aircraft can
> identify their ICAO code on request, keeping in mind
> FS suffers from the same
> problem).
I don't know what the ICAO format is, can I retrieve
this value from the FG property-tree ? If so, it will
implemented at once. At this moment I use the name of
the short name of the aircraft.
>
> * What aircraft is the airport departing from. I
> don't need to feed this, but
> it will speed FGFS up when a new aircraft joins in
> so if someone incorrectly
> defines the positition of a runway/terminal/taxiway
> etc. (unlikely in most
> cases), it won't look like it's taking off grass.
Not my responsebility at this time, without more
collision detection with the scenery its undoable to
handle this kind of subtle errors.
>
> * (could be useless) Aircraft vectors. FS2002
> clients mainly use GPS, so this
> may not be needed. But, if FlightGear ever gets
> interactive ATC, if the ATC
> knows in advance where the particular aircraft is
> (supposedly) going, that
> would help to avoid crashes.
FG itself does not maintain vectors, how could we
implement this in this module ?
(maintaining static position, extrapolating them and
sending the resulting vector might work ???)
> Some other things:
> The network module must either not tolerate multiple
> connections from the same
> client (and if my (proposed) add-on is on the same
> machine as FGFS, which it
> will likley be, it would have to open multiple) or
> be able to listen on
> multiple ports (these would have to be user space
> ones). Unless it would have
> no problem with me using one connection, and just
> putting the callsign as the
> first parameter of every message between the client
> and FGFS. (which I don't
> think is a good gamble)
A client computer can open as much connection as it
wants, but there should be only 1 for each Flight Gear
Client. The server can distinguis clients on different
computers by the UDP-port they are using (its unique
per sockets, when we're not cheating)
The UDP-ports the client uses gets assigned by the OS
and is unique for the client and the IP-address.
> My client has to be able to somehow plot a direct
> line as a flight path if
> another user's connection says nothing for more than
> a acceptable amount of
> time (didn't Leon say he was seaching for a way to
> do this, after all, we
> coukd just act like the plane is on Heading hold),
> Simclients (I think) kills
> the connection when a message is send to the client,
> but times out.
At the moment the plane would just stands still in mid
air for 10 second before the connection gets killed.
This is because I don't have a extrapolation formule
put is yet.
> If it (the user) drops out, we could do something
> more than making it
> disappear ,e.g, making it descend as if it's
> landing, but without the landing
> gear activated, or making some fun over the radio
> ("XXX001 Heavy at 35,000
> ft, declaring emergency, decending fast", "XXX001
> Heavy, rgr, descend to
> 10,000 feet", "[some tower] rgr [explosion]")
Not my idea, because in a development env this would
mean about 10 crashing planes at once when the server
drops out or the client looses his connection to it.
> >
> > =
> > My Flight Gear Multiplayer Stuff
> (work-in-progress):
> >
>
http://www.kbs.twi.tudelft.nl/People/Students/L.Otte/
>
>
> --
> Mathew McBride
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://mcbridematt.dhs.org
> Jabber: mcbridematt on the jabber.org server
>
> ___
> Flightgear
Re: SB/[open ATC protocol] client for FlightGear (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] IPC communication for FlightGear)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 07:25 pm, Mathew McBride wrote this piece of wisdom: > Developing a ATC client for FGFS is a good solution both Short and Long > term (saying that no one with a copy of FS2002 uses it these days because > of it's interactive ATC) I'm also working on some stuff for multiplayer, similiar to Vatsim(which uses Sqauwkbox). Currently I'm still at the stage of writing the connection management code. Thanks, David - -- If you give someone a program, you will frustrate them for a day. If you teach them how to program, you will frustrate them for a lifetime. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+JTAmZOfFgbBAbXARAl1vAJ4yokrNtymkWbhZ82Bsjlwwo2qe6QCfd7oa C32QWWHh4sXVW0OsYCEGw80= =f5PN -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] status of open bugs at sourceforge.net/projects/flightgear?
Jon Berndt wrote: Informally, when asked what I do (when among friends), I sometimes respond with a grin that I am a rocket scientist (which is my wife's cue to roll her eyes). In less informal circumstances I'd never do it. I saw somebody So, that don't impresses her much? Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Displaced thresholds (was: RE: [Flightgear-devel]Roadmap/brain dump)
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, David Megginson wrote: > Then, late, you can specify rules for which ones get included or > excluded in a build (i.e. the DAFIF KSFO and the X-Plane KSFO are > treated as different, mutually-exclusive airports). Hmmm It seems like that's just putting off the problem - but it would mean we could actually get the data in the system. > For now, let's just get all the airports in. The way that X-Plane > implements taxiways is just horrible -- aprons are just wide taxiways, > for example, and taxiways are always rectangles run together. Perhaps > we'll be able to think of a better system. OK, I'll work on that this evening then. -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
re: [Flightgear-devel] Displaced thresholds (was: RE: [Flightgear-devel]Roadmap/brain dump)
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, David Megginson wrote: > We also have fields for this information in the current default.apt > data, but they don't seem to be filled in. Some of the UK ones certainly are. EGNM for example. -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
SB/[open ATC protocol] client for FlightGear (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] IPC communication for FlightGear)
On Tuesday 14 January 2003 23:14, ace project wrote:
> A squakbox add-on would be a great, Matthew.
There's a problem there, I've ended up considering either:
1) Reverse engineering the Simclients protocol (used by SB and Procontroller).
Simclients won't give me information on the protocol without signing a NDA.
2) Developing a open protocol. This can be a better option, but at some times,
a bit of a gamble. It would have to be LGPL'ed, but on the plus side, anyone
wanting to create a ATC client for any sim can do so.
Developing a ATC client for FGFS is a good solution both Short and Long term
(saying that no one with a copy of FS2002 uses it these days because of it's
interactive ATC)
> Mike
>
> -
> I'm working on a network module. It uses UDP packets
> for communication and a client-server type model. The
> system is in early stages of building, the
> data-protocols themselves are 'finished' and working,
> I'm currently trying to make it work in FG. The
> current 'bug' is that new FGModelPlacements don't get
> updated when I want them to but I'm sure it will get
> fixed soon when my new graphics card arives end of the
> week (my old card was kind of slow (matrox G450 DH))
>
> If anyone wants to help, I'm searching for good
> prediction algoritmes to extrapolate the position of
> the plane for a max 1 sec interval.
>
> Leon Otte
I wonder, If I can constantly feed positions of aircraft using either
Simclients (or [insert open protocol here]) to the (in development) network
module, it will allow FS95/FS98/FS2000/FS2002/Fly!/Fly! II and FGFS clients
to be able to multiplay with each other (with FlightGear having the unfair
advantage of being able to actually see aircraft on other sims, but I'm
suspicions a add-one for FS allows a data-brige between SB and FS. ).
I would also have to feed at least once:
* The aircraft type. Can someone suggest a default aircraft type if FlightGear
doesn't have a suitable matching aircraft (aircraft info is sent as a ICAO
4-character code. I don't want to redefine every FGFS FDM so aircraft can
identify their ICAO code on request, keeping in mind FS suffers from the same
problem).
* What aircraft is the airport departing from. I don't need to feed this, but
it will speed FGFS up when a new aircraft joins in so if someone incorrectly
defines the positition of a runway/terminal/taxiway etc. (unlikely in most
cases), it won't look like it's taking off grass.
* (could be useless) Aircraft vectors. FS2002 clients mainly use GPS, so this
may not be needed. But, if FlightGear ever gets interactive ATC, if the ATC
knows in advance where the particular aircraft is (supposedly) going, that
would help to avoid crashes.
Some other things:
The network module must either not tolerate multiple connections from the same
client (and if my (proposed) add-on is on the same machine as FGFS, which it
will likley be, it would have to open multiple) or be able to listen on
multiple ports (these would have to be user space ones). Unless it would have
no problem with me using one connection, and just putting the callsign as the
first parameter of every message between the client and FGFS. (which I don't
think is a good gamble)
My client has to be able to somehow plot a direct line as a flight path if
another user's connection says nothing for more than a acceptable amount of
time (didn't Leon say he was seaching for a way to do this, after all, we
coukd just act like the plane is on Heading hold), Simclients (I think) kills
the connection when a message is send to the client, but times out.
If it (the user) drops out, we could do something more than making it
disappear ,e.g, making it descend as if it's landing, but without the landing
gear activated, or making some fun over the radio ("XXX001 Heavy at 35,000
ft, declaring emergency, decending fast", "XXX001 Heavy, rgr, descend to
10,000 feet", "[some tower] rgr [explosion]")
>
> =
> My Flight Gear Multiplayer Stuff (work-in-progress):
> http://www.kbs.twi.tudelft.nl/People/Students/L.Otte/
--
Mathew McBride
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mcbridematt.dhs.org
Jabber: mcbridematt on the jabber.org server
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
