scenario and player server
would be better.
Thoughts?
Paul
- Original Message -
From: "Jon S Berndt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multi
* Mass Multiplayer Server (MAYS) - Instead of a single
p2p connection, I would consider a large scale server
where multiple connections can be made, you can fly
with other people. I would ALSO weather and other
features to the server so it would not just be a
server for connections, but also a sc
Hi all,
I have been contemplating the multiplayer side of
FlightGear, I am intrested in proposing a multiplayer
server for the Flightgear:
* Mass Multiplayer Server (MAYS) - Instead of a single
p2p connection, I would consider a large scale server
where multiple connections can be made, you can
]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Network
Server
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/
__
I've thought in terms of a server that could manage a high volume of
aircraft. It would send back the locations of only the
closest/visible aircraft and not the entire set.
We had a so called bubble surrounding the aircraft in Falcon. And we had
2 types of units: aggregated and deaggregated.
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 23:46:54 +0200
Matevz Jekovec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, that is true. We should at least send the speed of the aircraft
> beside the coordinates themselves. This is very useful for close
> formation flying.
IMO, acceleration doesn't cost too much and may be an improv
Jorge Van Hemelryck wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 23:46:54 +0200
Matevz Jekovec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, that is true. We should at least send the speed of the aircraft
beside the coordinates themselves. This is very useful for close
formation flying.
IMO, acceler
Paul Morriss wrote:
If people are intrested in the idea then I will start
to work on some specs.
My original idea was to have two seperate server, one
for scenario and one for multiplayer, but I think that
a single multi-purpose scenario and player server
would be better.
Thoughts?
One thing to re
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 23:46:54 +0200,
Matevz Jekovec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I've thought in terms of a server that could manage a high volume of
> > aircraft. It would send back the locations of only the
> > closest/visible aircraft and not the entire set
Paul Morriss writes:
> I got the acronym like this:
>
> *M*ultipl*AY*er *S*erver
>
> I prefer the acronym of MAPS.
>
> If people are intrested in the idea then I will start
> to work on some specs.
>
> My original idea was to have two seperate server, one
> for scenario and one for multiplayer,
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 19:36:15 +0100 (BST)
Paul Morriss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Mass Multiplayer Server (MAYS) - Instead of a single
How do you get MAYS from Mass MultiPlayer Server? Should
it not be MMS, or MMPS? This is serious. The correct
acronym is critical in getting project support!
;
11 matches
Mail list logo
