[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
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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Partially Offtopic: Help open up the FSD protocol
On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 01:27 pm, Michael Basler wrote: Neither my flying skills nor my spare time are sufficient for taking part in Vatsim :-( Me too ... 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...). There's also IVAO? which is a different group but uses the same software 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. The problem will all these system, as I see it, is the lack of people willing to control. What I think would work much better is a web of servers, but with the ATC manned by AIs. Of course in the long run people could write a controller client and take over from the AI at a position, but basically the system could function happily without any human controllers. Now, writing those ATC AIs is non-trivial, but it's something that's in the pipe-line anyway. This also suggest a 'Quake-like' approach for local traffic and ATC : simply start a local server running the ATC ai and some plane AIs, and connect the main program to it over loopback. (Quake-like as in this is how every modern first-person shooter based on Quake or Unreal is set up. Bots on the server are indiscernible from other live players, and single-player works as expected, but is in fact running a server too). Comments? HH James -- The lack of planning on your part does not constitute to an emergency on mine ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
