On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> Obviously message loss is a concern for both the full-state message as
> well as the change messages.
>
> Does anyone know much about UDP packet loss scenarios? I know that it
> isn't a reliable protocol, but I don't know whether typically a
> propo
Anders Gidenstam wrote
> I have in previous (last winter IIRC) discussions on #flightgear claimed
> that modifying the MP protocol to only send MP properties that have
> changed would be problematic and break backwards compatibility.
>
> I was wrong.
>
> It is in fact easy to implement and is ne
--- On Tue, 15/7/08, Anders Gidenstam wrote:
> The idea is simple:
> 1. Only include properties that have changed since the last
> packet was sent.
> 2. To cope with thee potential for message loss include the
> changed property in the next 4 packets too.
> 3. To ensure that newcomers have the ful
Hi all,
I have in previous (last winter IIRC) discussions on #flightgear claimed
that modifying the MP protocol to only send MP properties that have
changed would be problematic and break backwards compatibility.
I was wrong.
It is in fact easy to implement and is nearly 100% backwards compat
4 matches
Mail list logo
