On Nov 18, 2008, at 2:51 AM, Geoff wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 13:57 +1100, dave wrote:
>> I think that
>> if you need to have serious, "trying to fly as realistically as
>> possible" events, then go ahead and organise more of them and
>> publish a
>> code of conduct for those attending. Who
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 13:57 +1100, dave wrote:
> I think that
> if you need to have serious, "trying to fly as realistically as
> possible" events, then go ahead and organise more of them and publish a
> code of conduct for those attending. Who knows? you could have it as
> often as weekly. We
portation
> also known as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> ----------------
> *From:* dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> *To:* FlightGear developers discussions
>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2008 9:57:30 PM
> *Subject:*
yland Department of Transportation
also known as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 9:57:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear in IVAO network
Dear Rob,
>From you
Dave, Thank you for saying what has been on my mind for some time
after reading the previous posts about the "kids".
I too spend a great deal of time around KSFO and the "kids", and I've
taken the time to help and encourage many with their "How do I fly a
helicopter?" questions. Yes, it makes me c
Dear Rob,
From your description it appears that I am one of those "kids". A 43
year old kid mind you. I am always polite to others on the MP system. I
sometimes perform stunts in unusual aircraft and show off just for a
laugh. I demonstrate what can be achieved with practise. I push the
flight
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:30:58 +0200, Pep wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> If you are asking how flight simulators in
> >> general communicate with IVAO, there are client applications that
> >> do this: IvAp (for MSFS), Squawkbox (for MSFS, Fly!), X-IvAp (for
> >> X-Plane), etc. It has
"Curtis Olson" wrote:
> I don't know if this idea has been proposed yet
[...]
> The IVAO team could implement a FlightGear compatible interface into their
> network.
Yup, this already had been proposed ;-)
I had yet another proposal in mind - but held it back for obvious
reasons. Meanwhile i
>> If you are asking how flight simulators in
>> general communicate with IVAO, there are client applications that do
>> this: IvAp (for MSFS), Squawkbox (for MSFS, Fly!), X-IvAp (for
>> X-Plane), etc. It has to be that way because of these simulators not
>> being open source.
>
> ..nor GPL. My u
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:03:51 +0200, Pep wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >> > ..you fly FG in IVAO using Wintendo??? How do these
> >> >> > communicate?
> >> >>
> >> >> It would be nice to fly FG in IVAO (this is the whole point of
> >> >> this conversation), whatever platform. I perso
>> >> > ..you fly FG in IVAO using Wintendo??? How do these communicate?
>> >>
>> >> It would be nice to fly FG in IVAO (this is the whole point of this
>> >> conversation), whatever platform. I personally prefer Linux, but
>> >> as FG is multiplatform, then IVAO would turn multiplatform...
>> >
>
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:13:16 +0200, Pep wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi all,
>
> > ..ok, so you have no way of assuring people see the same things at
> > IVAO.
>
> Right, though differences are scarce in practice. But even in real
> life, you have no way of assuring others see colors
Hi all,
> ..ok, so you have no way of assuring people see the same things at IVAO.
Right, though differences are scarce in practice. But even in real life, you
have no way of assuring others see colors the same way you do (just kiddin
;o) ).
>>
>> > ..you fly FG in IVAO using Wintendo??? How
I wrote:
> It seems
> that a large number (often, the majority) of FG-MP users are on the
> network to mess around and socialize rather than participate in a
> multi-aircraft scenario with any degree of realism.
Arnt wrote:
> ..my impression from what little I've seen here on this list,
> (I hav
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:13:50 +0300, Pep wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > ..shouldn't this warrant say a NOTAM to make these old versions,
> > realistically current? ;o)
>
> Terrain data is not only a question of updates, but a question of
> makes. There are a lot of airports to dow
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:23:38 -0800, Alex wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Pep Ribal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The IVAO team could implement a FlightGear compatible interface
> >> into their network. The work would be done on their servers, but
> >> t
>
> ..shouldn't this warrant say a NOTAM to make these old versions,
> realistically current? ;o)
Terrain data is not only a question of updates, but a question of
makes. There are a lot of airports to download, and every one sticks
to the one of their preference. There shouldn't be much problem
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Pep Ribal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The IVAO team could implement a FlightGear compatible interface into their
>> network. The work would be done on their servers, but then nothing would
>> need to change on the FlightGear side. The IVAO team would not need to
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 04:12:06 +0200, Pep wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi all.
>
> > Another big issue I was thinking about is how we would deal with our
> > differences in
> > terrain data? Maybey we should keep the technicall problems for a
> > later stage, but
> > having planes taxi
Hi all.
> Another big issue I was thinking about is how we would deal with our
> differences in
> terrain data? Maybey we should keep the technicall problems for a later
> stage, but
> having planes taxi meters above (or below) you just doesn't look good...
As far as I know FG uses the same geogr
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Matthew Tippett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If however, IVAO sees the value in allowing FG users access to their
> network as 'peer' pilots
Not to forget about acting as controllers, which would be a nice thing
to have too.
--
Csaba/Jester
--
My suggestion was along these lines, however I was focusing more on
the inter-organization issues than technical.
The technical details in my email was matching yours, that is the
FG-MP server accepts a connection from *any* trusted MP flight
environment. A secure wrapper using public key cryptog
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:19:44 -0800 (PST), Jr. wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > From: Matthew Tippett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:34:12 AM
> >
> > Note the subtle suggestion of the discussion here.
> >
> > To avoid exposing/causing concern with the
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Pep Ribal wrote:
> I don't think the MP servers have to change their philosophy. I don't think
> both networks should be merged: it would be better to have the possibility
> to choose. All this is a personal opinion, but I think your MP should
> remain
> intact, wi
Hi,
First response on this topic from my side.
> I don't think the MP servers have to change their philosophy. I don't think >
> both networks should be merged: it would be better to have the possibility >
> to choose.
As Rob noticed FlightGear has to deal with a lot of "kids" (I prefer to
Gear developers discussions
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear in IVAO network
I know I am usually just a lurker on this list, and when I do poke my head
in, it doesn't always make sense :)
However there is one concern I have about IVAO/FG-MP inter
portation
also known as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Matthew Tippett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:34:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear in IVAO network
Note the subtle suggestion of the discu
Robert Black wrote:
> [...] Flightgear
> should concentrate on making the tools and letting people use them as
> they see fit. This ensures the organizations that do right by their
> members continue while the ones who do not are not holding their members
> hostage because they own the so
Note the subtle suggestion of the discussion here.
To avoid exposing/causing concern with the GPL, keeping it completely
internal and not distributing it from IVAO seems like a good idea.
However, this appears to need FG to expand/revise it's MP interface to
allow secure connection of external MP
Martin Spott wrote:
> "Curtis Olson" wrote:
>
>
>> I believe this is the whole point of Pep bringing up the subject on the
>> FlightGear mailing list. He would like to work towards a concrete proposal,
>> and this is the preliminary discussion phase. Let's not beat up the
>> messenger [too muc
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:31:34 +0300, Pep wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The way IVAO has worked so far, as Curt says, is completely plugin
> based, in regard of flight simulators, due to the fact that the
> simulators that log in are not open source (let's change that!). In
> the case of
The way IVAO has worked so far, as Curt says, is completely plugin
based, in regard of flight simulators, due to the fact that the
simulators that log in are not open source (let's change that!). In
the case of FG, where FG itself is open source, and the MP server is
too, there are two approaches,
I think the key thread passing through each posting is mentioning that
the two networks should be bridged.
I don't believe the FG developer/user responses indicate a desire to
have FG act as a IVAO client, bypassing the existing MP network. Most
of the terms used imply a bridging of the two netwo
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:48:33 + (UTC), Martin wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Curtis Olson" wrote:
>
> > I believe this is the whole point of Pep bringing up the subject on
> > the FlightGear mailing list. He would like to work towards a
> > concrete proposal, and this is the prelim
"Curtis Olson" wrote:
> I believe this is the whole point of Pep bringing up the subject on the
> FlightGear mailing list. He would like to work towards a concrete proposal,
> and this is the preliminary discussion phase. Let's not beat up the
> messenger [too much], ok! :-)
I'm sorry if this w
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
> The above comments still don't tell us much about how things are
> supposed to work, they leave too much room for vague guesses.
>
> To make the story short: If IVAO is really serious about getting
> FlightGear on-board, they should approach F
"Pep Ribal" wrote:
> The way authentication is handled so far in IVAO ATC (IvAc) and pilot
> (IvAp) clients is a connection popup window that lets you fill VID and
> password, which you can retype every time you login, [...]
The above comments still don't tell us much about how things are
suppose
> The way authentication is handled so far in IVAO ATC (IvAc) and pilot
> (IvAp) clients is a connection popup window that lets you fill VID and
> password, which you can retype every time you login, or check for
> "remember me". Unfortunately I don't know much more of the internals
> of the softwa
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:45:00 + (UTC), Martin wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Pep Ribal" wrote:
> > 2008/11/10, Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I agree that concealing the protocol specs doesn't avoid the
> > possible hacks, but just makes it harder or postpones them.
>
> He
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:01:59 +0300, Pep wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The way authentication is handled so far in IVAO ATC (IvAc) and pilot
> (IvAp) clients is a connection popup window that lets you fill VID and
> password, which you can retype every time you login, or check for
> "rem
The way authentication is handled so far in IVAO ATC (IvAc) and pilot
(IvAp) clients is a connection popup window that lets you fill VID and
password, which you can retype every time you login, or check for
"remember me". Unfortunately I don't know much more of the internals
of the software, but if
Please forgive me all these early-morning-no-tea typos
Martin Spott wrote:
[...]
> authentication) ? How does the user experience the login procedure when
> he prepares for a flight if INL would be the means or transport ?
^^ "of"
> If yo
"Pep Ribal" wrote:
> 2008/11/10, Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I agree that concealing the protocol specs doesn't avoid the possible
> hacks, but just makes it harder or postpones them.
Heh, getting a clue about your favourite network monitor's output is
probably not much harder than readin
2008/11/10, Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You/they should probably start by explaining to FG developers/users
> which sort of "security" - what an elastic term ! - is meant to be
> achieved by not publishing the network protocol.
> In other words: The simple fact that there's no officially bl
"Pep Ribal" wrote:
> Regarding why IVAO keeps their protocols closed being a free
> community, what I've been always answered is that's for security
> reasons. So explaining them that the mentioned open gateway for FG
> wouldn't be a security issue is crucial. Developing it in a way that
> takes s
Pep Ribal wrote:
> I think the best way to proceed, after reading your posts, is to focus
> on this solution: a different (open) protocol for FlightGear inside
> IVAO servers. So what I'd ask you is a set of reasons why we should go
> for this solution and forget the INL: techical reasons
> (secur
Thanks for your comments and suggestions.
In the first place, I need to tell you that personally, I'm a "free
software guy", and I agree that the best possible solution is always
the GPL license. But this is personal.
BTW, you can find information about IVAO at www.ivao.aero, for those that asked
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:11 AM, Pep Ribal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We are not willing to publish our server protocol. That means that a
> possible module for connecting FG to the servers shouldn't be open source.
>
> We have developed a shared library called the INL (IVAO Network Library),
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:11:01 +0200, Pep wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi all,
>
> my name is Pep Ribal. I belong to the Software Development department
..this is a business enterprise, no?
> of the IVAO network. Some of you might remember me, as I was involved
> in a project regardi
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, I'm not sure if I really should trust the statistics on this page:
>
> http://www.ivao.org/network/servers.php
Nope. Try: http://network.ivao.aero/ao/aio.cgi
Currently (01:25 UTC) 24 controllers and 202 pilots.
--
C
On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 18:40 -0600, Curtis Olson wrote:
> It occurs to me that you might not like this option since it would
> reduce the level of control you have over individual clients in the
> FlightGear world.
One might suggest that this would be easily resolved by IVAO by simply
ignoring th
Hi Pep,
I haven't personally flown in the IVAO network, but if it is staffed by
realistic real world controllers and maintains similar standards of
professionalism as in the real aviation world, then I could see this being a
really nice option for FlightGear pilots.
The biggest challenge here is
"Pep Ribal" wrote:
> We are not willing to publish our server protocol. That means that a
> possible module for connecting FG to the servers shouldn't be open source.
BTW, I'm not sure if I really should trust the statistics on this page:
http://www.ivao.org/network/servers.php
According to
"Pep Ribal" wrote:
> We have developed a shared library called the INL (IVAO Network Library),
> freely available at no charge (IVAO freeware), but not open source, that
> would encapsulate all accesses to our servers. A potential FG module for
> connecting to the IVAO servers should link and u
Hi all,
my name is Pep Ribal. I belong to the Software Development department of the
IVAO network. Some of you might remember me, as I was involved in a project
regarding IVAO-FlightGear interconnection time ago.
That specific project was discontinued, but we at IVAO have not forgotten
about t
55 matches
Mail list logo
