On Tuesday 11 November 2003 09:46 am, Ima Sudonim wrote:
> OK, while I'm an avowed lurker, I find that this thread has even more
> possibilities
Wow, is "Sudonim" our first troll, or have there been others?
Dave
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMA
> > Well I feel like a total idiot right now. Everything I'm thinking about
> > that needs to be done has already had the core done. *slaps forehead*
> > The entire groundwork has been laid by the contents of the src/Network
> > directory. The work done for OpenGC stands as a great example of bui
Gene Buckle wrote:
Well I feel like a total idiot right now. Everything I'm thinking about
that needs to be done has already had the core done. *slaps forehead*
The entire groundwork has been laid by the contents of the src/Network
directory. The work done for OpenGC stands as a great example of
> If you start a project and need OO features, either do it properly (in
> Python or Objective-C), or do it the hard way with GLib/GObject.
>
Naw, Object Pascal is my first love. :)
> I'd better shut up on the mailing list of a giant project written in
> C++... I still admire you folks for gettin
> If C++ doesn't scare you, you have no business using it.
>
> Sorry, but that was just too open. I had to take the shot. But
> seriously, there's more truth in that statement than a sarcastic
> retort like it deserves. The time to run screaming from a project is
> the moment the architect dec
Gene Buckle wrote:
> Paul Surgeon wrote:
> > Why does C++ scare you?
>
> Well "scare" is probably too strong a word. :) I'm just unfamiliar
> with it. I can follow C ok, but the object references tangle me for
> some odd reason.
If C++ doesn't scare you, you have no business using it.
Sorry, but
Gene Buckle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > And in case someone didn't read my earlier post, I do not hold this opinion
> > myself, but I do think that a topical RFC should be posted before any war
> > related code is committed, even with a configuration flag. This _is_ a hot
> > button whether an
> > I'm just getting back into rooting around in the code and I don't yet have
> > a solid grasp on all the parts. AFAIK, the only "native" support for an
> > external module is OpenGC from what I've seen so far. I was referring the
> > creation of a universal method of obtaining data from the si
- Original Message -
From: "Gene Buckle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
> > > >
> > > um ?? for code/data local to an a/c instance ?? remoting that would slow
> > > down the response time to realtime events
> > >
> > For virtual cockpits, you're correct. however, when you're working with a
> > physical cockpit, you need to have your displays on separate physical
> > hardware.
- Original Message -
From: "Gene Buckle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
> > > >
> > > a nice place to stick information unique to that plane that is dynamic
> in
> > > nature -- can handle specialized panel displays, hud, etc
> > >
> > In that case, some kind of framework should be built so that the plug-in
> > could run on a seperate machine if needed.
>
> um ?? for code/
> I also come from a Delphi background but find the switch very easy.
Great! I'll help you write the server in Delphi. We can cross compile
with FPC. *laughs*
> Why does C++ scare you?
>
Well "scare" is probably too strong a word. :) I'm just unfamiliar with
it. I can follow C ok, but the obje
> > >
> > Thanks Paul. I pay my mortage with Delphi, VB & Pick. My C/C++ skills
> > are just enough to be able to identify it on sight and begin running the
> > other way. :)
>
> Sounds like you need a varient of the following t-shirt (credit to
> Mark Barry.)
>
> http://www.markbarry.com/pic
- Original Message -
From: "Gene Buckle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
> > I thin
On Monday, 10 November 2003 23:40, Gene Buckle wrote:
> Thanks Paul. I pay my mortage with Delphi, VB & Pick. My C/C++ skills
> are just enough to be able to identify it on sight and begin running the
> other way. :)
I also come from a Delphi background but find the switch very easy.
Both suppor
Gene Buckle writes:
> > > Anyone know of a good C++ tutorial? :) Something tells me I'm gonna need
> > > it. *g*
> >
> > Not sure if you're just kidding or serious ...
> > There's plenty of free C++ info online but here are a couple of free books :
> >
> Thanks Paul. I pay my mortage with Delphi,
> > Anyone know of a good C++ tutorial? :) Something tells me I'm gonna need
> > it. *g*
>
> Not sure if you're just kidding or serious ...
> There's plenty of free C++ info online but here are a couple of free books :
>
Thanks Paul. I pay my mortage with Delphi, VB & Pick. My C/C++ skills
are j
On Monday, 10 November 2003 22:40, Gene Buckle wrote:
> Anyone know of a good C++ tutorial? :) Something tells me I'm gonna need
> it. *g*
Not sure if you're just kidding or serious ...
There's plenty of free C++ info online but here are a couple of free books :
Bruce Eckel's Thinking in C++, 2n
> I think a dynamic shared library system that lets an a/c load up a module of
> its particular code when it is loaded needs to be added to the system -- be
> a nice place to stick information unique to that plane that is dynamic in
> nature -- can handle specialized panel displays, hud, etc
>
>
> Hey Gene since I am the one who initially brought up the issue
> I guess you are the one responsible for my ears burning :-)
>
Wasn't me. I'd chase down the guy with the matches. :)
>
> What I *was* objecting to and *will* continue to object to is a 'primary goal'
> of 'blow them out of the s
- Original Message -
From: "Gene Buckle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
> > On Monda
> On Monday, 10 November 2003 21:14, Gene Buckle wrote:
> > BTW, I know a group of virtual F-16 drivers that would practically wet
> > themselves over software they could use to drive their cockpits with. :)
> > Falcon 4.0 doesn't go far enough with their data exports.
>
> I like the idea of Flight
Gene Buckle writes:
>
> I read the whole post. Really! :)
Hey Gene since I am the one who initially brought up the issue
I guess you are the one responsible for my ears burning :-)
However note I never objected to the presence of munitions in FlightGear.
http://baron.flightgear.org/pipermail/fl
Gene Buckle writes:
> I guess my problem is that I'm totally unable to understand why
> someone would object to just the _presense_ of munitions code even
> being present. It completely baffles me. Even as I sit here
> pondering the why, all I can come up with is pejorative commentary
> and that'
On Monday, 10 November 2003 21:14, Gene Buckle wrote:
> BTW, I know a group of virtual F-16 drivers that would practically wet
> themselves over software they could use to drive their cockpits with. :)
> Falcon 4.0 doesn't go far enough with their data exports.
I like the idea of FlightGear being
- Original Message -
From: "Gene Buckle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 2:14 PM
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
> > >
> > > it offensive to even have source code included that discusses in weapon terms,
> > >
> > To me this is absurd to the extreme.
>
> To you maybe. This may not be the proper forum for you to be asserting
> judgements like that anyway (see alt.politics.*) :-D
>
...with cross-posts to alt.save.da
Gene Buckle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > it offensive to even have source code included that discusses in weapon terms,
> >
> To me this is absurd to the extreme.
To you maybe. This may not be the proper forum for you to be asserting
judgements like that anyway (see alt.politics.*) :-D
And
> An earlier thread mentioned some other things including a Reno race course
> based game. That would be very interesting.
>
Agreed! It would be a great feature to spur the development of 1930's era
racers too.
> it offensive to even have source code included that discusses in weapon terms,
>
To
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Hofman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm not sure I like the idea of FlightGear set up as a server. This will
> however keeps the code between the server and the client as close as
> possible.
I felt there were too many instances where the current simulation cod
Jon Berndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I would propose that the server be structured so that a purely
> > civilian/non-combat version could be run. I don't want it to be
> > possible for some idiot to come and blow me out of the sky when I'm
> > practicing ILS approaches in my C172 at my local
"John Barrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What this gets us:
[...]
> 2. running headless connected to a multiplayer server, the FGFS instance can
> handle multiple AI driven planes in the world on behalf of the server,
> creating a distributed server environment for larger simulations
[...]
I'd
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, John Barrett wrote:
> That applies to most everything one might do with FG except weapons code,
> and I consider the weapons code to be a small burden to non-combat users in
> terms of increased executable size and additional airplane information that
> wont get used in their s
John Barrett wrote:
"headless" would be "without any graphical display at all"
multiplayer does multiple planes in the scene, but expects the controlling
logic for all but the local plane (none in the case of headless) to be
handled by processes over the network
I would VERY much like to see the
John Barrett wrote:
Hmm... perhaps the person who was thinking about puting some life on the
ground might like to try shipping first as it might be easier than trying
to follow roads;)
Keep going -- lotsa other things that can be added :)
One issue is consistency of display -- I would say making s
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Matkovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 12:07 AM
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
> Could you describe the --headless option (Phase 1 changes)?
> Sounds a little like wha
John Barrett writes:
>
> Norman Vine writes
> >
> > Please - remember FGFS is not a flat earth system
>
> whatever works -- if the computation gets too intense, it can always be
> handled periodically (every 60-120 seconds perhaps) and keep a list of
> entities for which we are interested in the
- Original Message -
From: "Lee Elliott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I read your later post after I'd sent that:) I agree that the server
> operator choosing the type of world is a good idea.
>
> However, there's potential for quite a wide range of realistic scenarios
> including elements of
On Sunday 09 November 2003 22:23, John Barrett wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Lee Elliott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "FlightGear developers discussions"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 5:05 PM
> Subj
- Original Message -
From: "Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 6:28 PM
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
> John Bar
John Barrett writes:
>
> If each client instance specified "I'm only interested in events which
> happen within 20deg of my current position" (use a square around current
> lat/lon offset by the range specified, rather than circular) -- should be
> very fast for the server to do that check before
- Original Message -
From: "Jon Stockill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
> On Sun, 9 Nov
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, John Barrett wrote:
> If each client instance specified "I'm only interested in events which
> happen within 20deg of my current position" (use a square around current
> lat/lon offset by the range specified, rather than circular) -- should be
Yeah, it's certainly a much faste
- Original Message -
From: "Jon Stockill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
> On
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, John Barrett wrote:
> Though actually -- a single master server could handle all the position
> updates without that much trouble given the update limiter code and headless
> (no opengl display) operation -- offload the airport and regional ATC to
> stand alone apps that interf
I think that is pretty much what I was angling for, just more clearly
vocalized. :-)
Thanks,
Curt.
John Barrett writes:
> I'm talking more along the idea that the server operator will choose if the
> world is combat or not combat -- rather than trying to do both in the same
> world -- once I ge
- Original Message -
From: "Lee Elliott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
> On Sunday 09 N
On Sunday 09 November 2003 21:16, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> John Barrett writes:
> > Would a --no-combat option on the server be acceptable ??
> >
> > (i.e. someone can pull the trigger, but it wont do anything to the
> > multiplayer world -- they could still use you for a target, but you
would
>
- Original Message -
From: "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
> John Barr
- Original Message -
From: "Jon Berndt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 4:24 PM
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
> > John Bar
> John Barrett writes:
> > Would a --no-combat option on the server be acceptable ??
> >
> > (i.e. someone can pull the trigger, but it wont do anything to the
> > multiplayer world -- they could still use you for a target, but
> you would
> > never see the ordinance)
>
> That sounds reasonable. I
John Barrett writes:
> Would a --no-combat option on the server be acceptable ??
>
> (i.e. someone can pull the trigger, but it wont do anything to the
> multiplayer world -- they could still use you for a target, but you would
> never see the ordinance)
That sounds reasonable. I would add the a
- Original Message -
From: "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I would propose that the server be structured so that a purely
> civilian/non-combat version could be run. I don't want it to be
> possible for some idiot to come and blow me out of the sky when I'm
> practicing ILS app
> I would propose that the server be structured so that a purely
> civilian/non-combat version could be run. I don't want it to be
> possible for some idiot to come and blow me out of the sky when I'm
> practicing ILS approaches in my C172 at my local airport.
I guess there ought to be an explici
Jonathan Richards writes:
> What I value about FlightGear is that it attempts to *simulate* the
> real world
> and aviation in it. The landscapes and the airports are realistic, the
> weather is (can be made) realistic, the celestial objects are realistic, the
> flight dynamics themselves are
On Thursday 06 Nov 2003 8:13 pm, David Luff wrote:
> Jonathan Richards writes:
> > I loaded up all the /ATC/*.cxx files into KDevelop this morning to see if
> > I could understand how it all fits together, but rapidly got lost in the
> > detail. Have you got a paragraph or two to hand which descr
> >
> > That would be pretty cool. Just imagine the fun you could have with a 747
> > water bomber. :)
> >
> > Something needs to be done about the terrain though - it's too "clean".
> >
> > g.
> >
>
> Call that phase 4: Extending terrain data for low level and ground level sim
>
>
Take a peek her
- Original Message -
From: "Gene Buckle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
> > Plus it&
Jonathan Richards writes:
> On Thursday 06 Nov 2003 1:05 pm, David Luff wrote:
>
> > The very very latest CVS (not the 0.9.3 release) can generate some
> > situation-relevant messages from the tower to the user - if you'd like to
> > participate in the ATC development then just shout, there's ple
> Plus it'd allow modelling of other interesting things - how about being
> able to practice your fire fighting skills? (actually, a horrible thought
> just occurred to me - imagine trying to model a helicopter with a water
> tank swinging about under it :-)
>
That would be pretty cool. Just imag
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, John Barrett wrote:
> Seriously -- I'm more interested in WWII dogfight style combat -- guns/wing
> cannon, and dropped bombs only :) So we are really talking minimal changes
> for that type of combat.
Plus it'd allow modelling of other interesting things - how about being
abl
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Richards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I agree, though, that what is missing is other inhabitants of the
simulated
> planet :) The biggest mismatch with reality is the absence of other air
> traffic, or even ground movement, and I know that people have start
- Original Message -
From: "David Luff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status
> On 11/6/03
On Thursday 06 Nov 2003 1:05 pm, David Luff wrote:
> The very very latest CVS (not the 0.9.3 release) can generate some
> situation-relevant messages from the tower to the user - if you'd like to
> participate in the ATC development then just shout, there's plenty to do!
David - I was so enthused
"Norman Vine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW Historicaly FlightGear has resisted being a Military SIM.
> < actually resisted is not a strong enough word >
>
> I realize project goals evolve but . IMO this is an admirable
> feature
I second that,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friend
On 11/6/03 at 11:32 AM Jonathan Richards wrote:
>sky'? The spirit of simulation would rather suggest building in flight
>planning, ground- and air-traffic control, and generally relieving the
>loneliness. If I thought I could do it (and I might...) I'd begin to see
>if
>we can have FlightGear gen
On Thursday 06 Nov 2003 9:10 am, Norman Vine wrote:
> John Barrett writes:
> > primary goal: blow them outa the sky !!
>
> FWIW Historicaly FlightGear has resisted being a Military SIM.
> < actually resisted is not a strong enough word >
>
What I value about FlightGear is that it attempts to *simul
On 11/6/03 at 1:36 AM John Barrett wrote:
>3. Initial Radio Message set definition
>a. Tower ATC messages
>b. Regional ATC messages
>c. Ground Traffic Control
>
There is current ongoing progress in this area within FlightGear. I
haven't quite got my head round what the multiplayer ser
John Barrett writes:
>
> primary goal: blow them outa the sky !!
FWIW Historicaly FlightGear has resisted being a Military SIM.
< actually resisted is not a strong enough word >
I realize project goals evolve but . IMO this is an admirable
feature
Norman
__
70 matches
Mail list logo
