Hi,
On Thursday 08 October 2009 22:09:40 Martin Spott wrote:
> If bandwidth is not a matter, then you'd probably want to jump on the
> HLA train and join the CERTI/VirtualAir effort. They're offering
> everything like subscribing to attributes and the such yet I have
> to state that reduced
Hi,
On Thursday 08 October 2009 17:29:21 James Turner wrote:
> Related to the new route-manager: I could very easily define a string
> property which contains a plain text summary of the filed flight-plan.
> What is the magic required to expose that string (which be 200 or 400
> bytes, I guess, d
Erik Hofman wrote:
> I once played with the idea of assigning 32-bit id's to property names
> (and make the unique and consistent across clients) and a simple push
> and pull protocol.
As an interesting side effect, assigning pre-defined ID's to every
property would require all involved aircraf
On Friday 09 October 2009 14:47:14 Vivian Meazza wrote:
>
> This all sounds very exciting. I'm usually available for testing (on
> Windows) - remember the hassle we had with linux/Windows and MP in the past?
We will not get into such trouble again. But... ;)
I have ripped all plib networking co
Oliver Schroeder wrote:
> On Friday 09 October 2009 00:21:11 James Turner wrote:
> >
> > On 8 Oct 2009, at 23:05, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> >
> > > This, or something very like it, is a long outstanding proposal that
> > > never
> > > quite made it. No one got a round tuit for it I guess. That said
James Turner wrote:
> There's quite a lot of improvements that could be made to higher
> levels of MP, if arbitrary properties could be synchronised over MP :)
I once played with the idea of assigning 32-bit id's to property names
(and make the unique and consistent across clients) and a simple
On 9 Oct 2009, at 07:30, Oliver Schroeder wrote:
> Currently I'm trying to get everything working. I therefor I have
> written a
> pseudo client, called mpdummy. The code is currently not fully
> functional, as
> it is work in progress. I try my best to write some documentation of
> the
> c
On Friday 09 October 2009 00:21:11 James Turner wrote:
>
> On 8 Oct 2009, at 23:05, Vivian Meazza wrote:
>
> > This, or something very like it, is a long outstanding proposal that
> > never
> > quite made it. No one got a round tuit for it I guess. That said, a
> > minute
> > delay on event-d
On 8 Oct 2009, at 23:05, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> This, or something very like it, is a long outstanding proposal that
> never
> quite made it. No one got a round tuit for it I guess. That said, a
> minute
> delay on event-driven properties is probably too much.
Well if it's 30 seconds, I thin
James wrote
> -Original Message-
> From: James Turner [mailto:zakal...@mac.com]
> Sent: 08 October 2009 22:06
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Exposing a property over MP
>
>
> On 8 Oct 2009, at 21:54, Anders Gidenstam wro
On 8 Oct 2009, at 21:54, Anders Gidenstam wrote:
> Going in that direction could be a feasible way to
> reduce the bandwidth consumption, though.
One other observation - there's several unused SGProperty flags
(besides ARCHIVABLE) - it might make sense to add a 'shared' or
'published' flag,
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> Way back in the early iterations of MP we had 2 sorts of messages - those
> which were transmitted on every cycle, and those which were transmitted on
> change of data. The trouble with that is with clients joining and leaving,
> it is hard to ensure that
On 8 Oct 2009, at 21:37, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> Way back in the early iterations of MP we had 2 sorts of messages -
> those
> which were transmitted on every cycle, and those which were
> transmitted on
> change of data. The trouble with that is with clients joining and
> leaving,
> it is h
Anders Gidenstam wrote
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, James Turner wrote:
>
> >
> > That sounds bad :)
>
> It is, but in my experience there is no core developer feeling
> particularly responsible for the MP subsystem - most of the few patches
> that has been submitted in the past years have disappeared
James Turner wrote:
> There's quite a lot of improvements that could be made to higher
> levels of MP, if arbitrary properties could be synchronised over MP :)
As far as _I_ remember, the current state of the protocol was _not_
designed for having everyone dump arbitrary data to the crowd but
i
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, James Turner wrote:
>
> That sounds bad :)
It is, but in my experience there is no core developer feeling
particularly responsible for the MP subsystem - most of the few patches
that has been submitted in the past years have disappeared into the
mailing list archive without
> The way the MP protocol is done now you really really do not want to do
> that by creating a new MP enabled string property and put the flight-plan
> in it. Not only is the string encoding horribly inefficient (a 32bit word
> per character) but it would also be sent in each and every packet.
Wow,
On 8 Oct 2009, at 18:08, Anders Gidenstam wrote:
> The way the MP protocol is done now you really really do not want to
> do
> that by creating a new MP enabled string property and put the flight-
> plan
> in it. Not only is the string encoding horribly inefficient (a 32bit
> word
> per char
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, James Turner wrote:
> Related to the new route-manager: I could very easily define a string
> property which contains a plain text summary of the filed flight-plan.
> What is the magic required to expose that string (which be 200 or 400
> bytes, I guess, depending on how many w
Related to the new route-manager: I could very easily define a string
property which contains a plain text summary of the filed flight-plan.
What is the magic required to expose that string (which be 200 or 400
bytes, I guess, depending on how many waypoints are in the route) over
MP, so th
20 matches
Mail list logo
