[Flightgear-devel] IPC communication for FlightGear
Hi, I am the developer of VA-Pilot ( a java based program which I wrote. It looks up current flights on the IVAO/IVAN network, files pireps and can display notams http://vapilot.sourceforge.net (page severly out of date)). I'm wondering if there is some sort of Interprocess communication module (like FSUIPC) for FlightGear. The idea is I could use JNI (Java Native Interfaces) to do a whole lot in FlightGear (maybe look up a suitable flightplan and enter the data into autopilot, and report the current status of the flight). Is there any way to do this? ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] IPC communication for FlightGear?
Hi, I am the developer of VA-Pilot ( a java based program which I wrote. It looks up current flights on the IVAO/IVAN network, files pireps and can display notams). I'm wondering if there is some sort of Interprocess communication module (like FSUIPC) for FlightGear. The idea is I could use JNI (Java Native Interfaces) to do a whole lot in FlightGear (maybe look up a suitable flightplan and enter the data into autopilot, and report the current status of the flight). Is there any way to do this? ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] IPC communication for FlightGear
On Saturday 11 January 2003 07:01, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > ..amen! Url to your source code? (Even if it may not be ready to > publish for "end users".) It's in the CVS at SourceForge. http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/vapilot/cvs_1.1/ It is kind of ready for end users. I deployed it at the Cyprus Airways Virtual Airline (along side a install of PHP-Nuke) and it only lasted around a month and a half (due to problems with the Sun JRE across different Windoze versions). Most current code in the CVS can be dismissed as 'archived stuff/obsolete' as I am rewriting most of the code (and doing other things like making a customized distribution of PostNuke for Virtual Airlines and I may be looking to develop an open source implementation of Squakbox and it's SimClients protocol [the words 'proprietary protocol' and 'intellectual property' in their protocol development agreement made me shiver]). ___ 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] IVAO support?
I've already discussed this on the list a few days back. Simclients (used by IVAO and VATSIM) are proprietary, so I'm going to have to reverse engineer it (the fact that It could be a IPX protocol is even worse, as I wasn't able to connect on a Win98 box without IPX, but I did on a WinME box with IPX, the Flightsim world doesn't like TCP/IP for some reason). I'm not up to date with the FGFS tree at the moment (someone please look in to the fact that I was unable to compile FlightGear 9.1 against Mesa32 (linking problems)). I discussed it here: http://seneca.me.umn.edu/pipermail/flightgear-devel/2003-January/014707.html On Tuesday 21 January 2003 10:07, Mike Bonar wrote: > Major, I believe one of the developers is working/exploring this area. See > the IPC Communications thread. It seems that their protocols are > proprietary if I understand correctly. Check out www.vatsim.net as well. > > On Saturday 18 January 2003 21:23, Major A wrote: > > Damn, I'm starting to feel rather uncomfortable asking all these > > questions without actually contributing... > > > > I've recently come across a website which promises to be a global > > aviation simulation platform: > > > > http://www.ivao.org/ > > > > You can connect as a pilot or air traffic controller, using TCP/IP > > protocols. My problem is that the programs they specify are all > > Window$-based, worse even, one of them is M$ FS. > > > > Has anyone tested this to see what functionality FlightGear is still > > missing to be useful in this scenario? It might be worth negotiating > > with the tech guys at IVAO to see whether a direct network interface > > between IVAO and FG could be implemented, rather than having to go > > through SquawkBox or so. > > > > Andras > > > > = > >== Major Andras > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > www:http://andras.webhop.org/ > > ===== > >== > > > > ___ > > Flightgear-devel mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- 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
[Flightgear-devel] Partially Offtopic: Help open up the FSD protocol
Hi, In my ongoing quest to implement a FSD (protocol used in SquakBox) client for FlightGear, I've read the Protocol Info document located at http://www.simclients.com/ProtoDev-InfoForProspectiveDevelopers.doc (word document, 103 kb) and at page 2 section 4 it reads: "The group is protected by an agreement, made between each developer and the group (as a whole) which prevents disclosure of privileged communications. This allows members of the group to discuss network sensitive issues, or share source code, within the group with a guarantee of security. The agreement allows open development between genuine developers, whilst protecting the network and users from trojan software and troublesome developers.". (I take "troublesome developers" as an Insult, not because I am pretty much an Ameteur, but it makes it look like a 'special club', (it is)) Basically they are making this protocol proprietary so no one can develop crap clients. The agreement has a 25-year lifespan. (thats a _long_ time when you talk about FGFS). I wish to send a joint letter (on behalf on the FGFS community and me) to the ProtoDev Development group as a request to open up the FSD protocol. What are they talking about security. Hey, anyone can get access to the protocol docs of the MSN, ICQ and (especially) Jabber IM networks, and to a whole lot more protocols. I have no idea of who is in the Protocol development group (thus persuading a motion to open the protocol is hard), but I am aware of 2 members: VATSIM Representative James Willan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) SimClients Liaison Steve Groner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) If this fails, I will either : a) reverse engineer the protocol. Considering trying to block any clients I develop based on my work will be hard b) create a brand new one. I wish to collect as many views and names I can. DO NOT send messenges personally to the representatives above. Send them to my address with "[FSD petition]" somewhere in the subject line. Remember: FlightGear has no agent to communicate with other Flight Sim's. If we developed a FSD client, I _swear_ some interest will come to FlightGear. -- Mathew McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Partially Offtopic: Help open up the FSD protocol
I have some more info on this in a seperate thread: http://seneca.me.umn.edu/pipermail/flightgear-devel/2003-January/014707.html Keep in mind that FG doesn't have even a limited (FS95 type 'you are cleared to take off', 'you are cleared to land' ) ATC yet. So a FSD client could be handy. Their are two main FSD networks: 1) IVAO. This is more of a european network, but with much better connections in other parts of the world (Australia). I belive they use their own server, and you can download it from http://www.ivao.org/network/default.htm. I use this network 2) VATSIM. More of a US-oriented network. With some strong connections in the Middle East. They have membership of the ProtoDev group. Their network infastructure isn't too hot however (I find the OZPACK(australian) server is possibly located outside Australia, it doesn't have a APNIC assigned IP address). We could create our own network protocols. I am thinking of building some thing on top of Jabber. (Fits the profile nicely, XML based (making bindings available in a lot of languages, most notably PHP (handy for network stats) , has pluggable "services" and freely availiable server source code). But as I disscussed in my seperate thread, FlightGear's "openess" can allow me to program it so the FG pilots can see aircraft from other sims. No other sim can do that (I think something might do it for FS2002). Some other FG comms stuff on my long term radar: 1) ACARS. Hey, aircfaft don't communicate over voice completely. They do use Text comms some times. 2) That darn interactive ATC. This should tie in with any multiplay efforts. This ain't going to happen soon. I'm looking to start off with the ATC "vectoring" aircraft on a route. (this is most likely to be Fix type. Since FG can already use Fixes as Autopilot nav points. No other sim can do that :) ) Note that most of my effors are likely to be in Java. When the guys at gcc.gnu.org finish merging CLASSPATH and GCJ's own java code, I will consider intergrating this into FlightGear natively (optional). But I'm unsure how GCJ compiled code can be called from C. I am looking to release a "discussion" paper on this topic sometime. - Original Message - From: "Michael Basler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 12:27 AM Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Partially Offtopic: Help open up the FSD protocol > Mathew, > > > "The group is protected by an agreement, made between each > > developer and the > > group (as a whole) which prevents disclosure of privileged communications. > > Neither my flying skills nor my spare time are sufficient for taking part in > Vatsim :-( > > However, I know that there are a few competiting networks a la Vatsim > present or just emerging and I read several quite sharp debates (from > various parties) about "stealing" ideas, data, members from each other in > Newsgroups right now (instead of sharing services, members, controllers...). > > While Vatsim certainly is a cool service with a huge member base and the > idea seems to be intriguing, I don't think this is the envirenment we want > for FG, isn't it? > > If you can do it, I'd propose developing our own (albeit small) service. If > not more, than just a few controllers around KSFO as a proof of concept. > > 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 mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
