On 11/13/03 at 2:53 PM Curtis L. Olson wrote:
>My little brothers would always destroy my lego creations the instant
>I turned my back in order to build their own. Grrr ... :-)
>
Younger (still destructive) kid went to bed early the other night, so I got
to play Lego (Duplo - the next size up bri
David Luff writes:
> Younger (still destructive) kid went to bed early the other night, so I got
> to play Lego (Duplo - the next size up bricks) with slightly older kid
> only. My wife seemed somewhat surprised to find a tower stretching from
> floor to ceiling when she got in, held in place at t
On 11/13/03 at 12:50 PM Andy Ross wrote:
>John Barrett wrote:
>> Why is an interactive session "by default" generating AI aircraft
>> without a loaded scenario to control those aircraft ??
>
>David Luff wrote:
>> Um, my plan was actually to have the sim spawn appropriate random
>> aircraft as the
John Barrett writes:
> Why is an interactive session "by default" generating AI aircraft without a
> loaded scenario to control those aircraft ?? The "server" should be loading
> the scenario. Having an airport spawn aircraft just because someone is close
> by the airport should not be a default be
Andy Ross writes:
> So long as you two don't share code at the top level, and instead are
> simply using the same foundations, you won't care. By analogy: hand
> two kids a box of legos and they can both play happily. Hand them the
> same blocks in the form of a space cruiser and you have a fight
- Original Message -
From: "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
> John Barrett writes
John Barrett wrote:
> Why is an interactive session "by default" generating AI aircraft
> without a loaded scenario to control those aircraft ??
David Luff wrote:
> Um, my plan was actually to have the sim spawn appropriate random
> aircraft as the user gets near, and to have each airport populate
On 11/13/03 at 1:48 PM John Barrett wrote:
>Why is an interactive session "by default" generating AI aircraft without
a
>loaded scenario to control those aircraft ?? The "server" should be
loading
>the scenario. Having an airport spawn aircraft just because someone is
>close
>by the airport should
- Original Message -
From: "David Culp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
> > Without a scenario l
> Without a scenario loaded, or a
> connection to a server, its just you all by your lonesome (which I had
> thought was the situation given my experience loading up FG and flying
> around with the default settings)
The AI already in place is little used because it's tied to one airport and
needs
- Original Message -
From: "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
> John Barrett writes:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
John Barrett writes:
And I envision a "client" that handles multiple AI aircraft on behalf of a
server thats plenty busy enuf handling message passing and other management
functionality (this "client" really it could be considered part of the
server, but so much of the code
John Barrett writes:
> And I envision a "client" that handles multiple AI aircraft on behalf of a
> server thats plenty busy enuf handling message passing and other management
> functionality (this "client" really it could be considered part of the
> server, but so much of the code is the same comp
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 10:46 AM
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
> [Starting a new thread. Joh
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
> John Barrett wrote:
>
- Original Message -
From: "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
> John Barrett write
David Culp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Ok -- all you have done is state that takeoff is a procedure to be followed
> > without defining the procedure (i.e. its hard coded and there is no
> > variation from that procedure)
>
> Actually, I don't see a need for the AI airplanes to have brakes, ele
[Starting a new thread. John's reply was burried in the parent thread]
John Barret wrote:
> I would like to request your ideas and wishes for an aircraft AI
> scripting language sufficiently generic in scope to handle piloting
> any aircraft running on FG.
There is some support already in place
John Barrett wrote:
>- Original Message -
>From: "David Culp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 9:24 AM
>Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] AC
John Barrett writes:
> Very different indeed -- I'm trying to model the pilots deciscion processes
> and interactions at a general level sufficient to write procedures to do
> ANYTHING that can be done with a plane. Directly controlling an aircraft via
> FDM just insures that the generic procedures
- Original Message -
From: "David Culp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
> Ok -- all you have done i
On 11/13/03 at 8:15 AM Curtis L. Olson wrote:
>John Barrett writes:
>> on (climbrate > 100) {
>> elevators--;
>> }
>> on (climbrate < 100) {
>> elevators++;
>> }
>
>Look out below (and above) which ever comes first! :-)
>
I used to try flyin
> Ok -- all you have done is state that takeoff is a procedure to be followed
> without defining the procedure (i.e. its hard coded and there is no
> variation from that procedure)
Actually, I don't see a need for the AI airplanes to have brakes, elevators,
flaps and such. Our visions of AI traf
- Original Message -
From: "John Barrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
> on (speed =
John Barrett writes:
> on (climbrate > 100) {
> elevators--;
> }
> on (climbrate < 100) {
> elevators++;
> }
Look out below (and above) which ever comes first! :-)
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project
- Original Message -
From: "David Culp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 11:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
> > I would like t
- Original Message -
From: "Jon Berndt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 8:33 AM
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
> > The only reason I&#
On 11/13/03 at 8:13 AM John Barrett wrote:
>
>The only reason I'm not done with the "fly together" code is I'm packing
to
>move from Kentucky to Texas this weekend -- there is a uhaul in front of
my
>apartment stacked to the ceiling with stuff and we still got loading yet
to
>do today :)
I'm look
> The only reason I'm not done with the "fly together" code is I'm packing
to
> move from Kentucky to Texas this weekend
Good move. :-) ;-)
Where in Texas?
Jon
(Houston)
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/
- Original Message -
From: "David Luff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 5:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
> I not trying to put you
> Yes I would prefer an ac+fdm+autopilot solution strictly
for realism> purposes -- but anything that instances planes controled by
FG needs to be> hooked into my network code so that ac status updates can
be made> visible to all other participants.>> AIPlane
definitly meets some of my needs
On 11/12/03 at 11:06 PM John Barrett wrote:
>
>Yes I would prefer an ac+fdm+autopilot solution strictly for realism
>purposes -- but anything that instances planes controled by FG needs to be
>hooked into my network code so that ac status updates can be made visible
>to
>all other participants.
No
> I would like to request your ideas and wishes for an aircraft AI scripting
> language sufficiently generic in scope to handle piloting any aircraft
> running on FG.
My generalized AI airplanes were originally going to be defined in
preferences.xml (like the ai-tanker), something like this for
- Original Message -
From: "David Luff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Multiplayer] Oh where Oh where ...
> On 11/12/03 at 8:08 PM John Barrett wrote:
> >
> >
34 matches
Mail list logo
