On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 23:37 +, Lee Elliott wrote:
> On Thursday 05 Jan 2006 22:46, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> > Martin Spott wrote:
> > >Hello Durk,
> > >
> > >Durk Talsma wrote:
> > >>I still haven't firmly decided how ATC should interact with
> > >> AI traffic, but that these systems should be
Durk Talsma wrote:
Well I guess, a basic solution would be to have a master/slave mode for the
AIModels subsystem, where the master computer does the "intelligent" AIModels
work, and sends the resulting data across the network. The remaining
computers, wouldn't have the AIModels system do anyt
John Wojnaroski wrote:
> Not sure this is what you're looking for.
> http://openatc.sourceforge.net/test/
> IIRC there were some discussions about an ATC program that would work
> with the TNL libraries, and I seem to recall a project page on SF. But,
> as noted, it seems to have vanished...
Yep
On Friday 06 January 2006 00:38, Dave Culp wrote:
> On Thursday 05 January 2006 04:46 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> > Also, who ever is developing and working on the MP and AI code:
> >
> > PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE,
> > PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PL
On Thursday 05 January 2006 23:44, Paul Surgeon wrote:
> On Thursday 05 January 2006 21:13, Durk Talsma wrote:
> > I haven't firmly
> > decided yet, but I'm considering starting to tackle airway following
> > code, which is in a way quite similar to the ground network.
>
> Now that would be amazing
On Thursday 05 January 2006 23:39, Karsten Krispin wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2006 23:32 schrieb Martin Spott:
> > To me it's obvious why MP and AI are partially going to be merged some
> > day, because both are 'exterior' sources of aircraft movement from the
> > FlightGear users' point of
On January 6, 2006 03:02 am, Martin Spott wrote:
> You put then whole idea question just because you don't know who would
> do the ATC ?
Please don't answer the question with a question. Who's going to be the ATC?
> Doing things right (TM) is always an appealing argument. The real world
> has voi
Not sure this is what you're looking for.
http://openatc.sourceforge.net/test/
IIRC there were some discussions about an ATC program that would work
with the TNL libraries, and I seem to recall a project page on SF. But,
as noted, it seems to have vanished...
JW
Martin Spott wrote:
Oliver S
Oliver Schroeder wrote:
> On Thursday 05 January 2006 18:09, Martin Spott wrote:
>> The software that I had in mind is "xATC". Although I still have a copy
>> of the 1.3b release I have the impression that the project has closed.
>> I'm not sure about the license.
>
> Do you have an URL to the p
Martin Spott wrote:
>
> Doing things right (TM) is always an appealing argument. The real world
> has voice ATC communication, so doing things right would imply doing
> the same in FlightGear as well. But "doing things right" is not the
> point here. In fact I know several people who use MSFS righ
> be a useless feature (for quite a long time) -- who is going to be the ATC?
> And let's not forget that a voice-based ATC would be incompatible with the AI
> system that we have now, or would have in the future.
I think it won't be useless. And it's fine to have one of the two enabled
at the sam
On Friday 06 January 2006 09:02, Martin Spott wrote:
> "Ampere K. Hardraade" wrote:
> > I'm not saying FlightGear shouldn't do this. I'm saying that this is
> > going to be a useless feature (for quite a long time) -- who is going to
> > be the ATC?
>
> [...]
>
> > Learn to walk before you learn
On Thursday 05 January 2006 23:32, Martin Spott wrote:
> Hello Durk,
>
> Durk Talsma wrote:
> > I still haven't firmly decided how ATC should interact with AI traffic,
> > but that these systems should be integrated has always been part of my
> > overarching design plan. Since my AI developments ar
Hi,
On Friday 06 January 2006 00:37, Lee Elliott wrote:
> On Thursday 05 Jan 2006 22:46, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> > Also, who ever is developing and working on the MP and AI
> > code:
> >
> > PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE,
> > PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEAS
On Thursday 05 January 2006 18:09, Martin Spott wrote:
> Oliver Schroeder wrote:
> > A RADAR station can be implemented as a listener to the server, so the
> > server sends information of aircrafts to the radar just as to any other
> > client. Maybe I have to add some minor changes to the server
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 04:04:12 -0800 (PST), Trasca wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Yesterday I was thinking to try to model the
> plane that Curt suggested but I think implementing a
> voice ATC is much more pliable on my actual skills
> "good C/C++ & researchi
"Ampere K. Hardraade" wrote:
> I'm not saying FlightGear shouldn't do this. I'm saying that this is going
> to
> be a useless feature (for quite a long time) -- who is going to be the ATC?
[...]
> Learn to walk before you learn to run. Let's get things done right first
> before we try and d
On January 5, 2006 04:10 am, Martin Spott wrote:
> Could you probably back this with an explanation ? Voice-based ATC is
> done all over the world, why should'nt FlightGear do this as well ?
>
> Martin.
I'm not saying FlightGear shouldn't do this. I'm saying that this is going to
be a useless fea
"Curtis L. Olson" writes:
>
> Also, who ever is developing and working on the MP and AI code:
>
> PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE,
> PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE,
> PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE,
On Thursday 05 January 2006 04:46 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> Also, who ever is developing and working on the MP and AI code:
>
> PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE,
> PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE,
> PLEASE, PLEASE, PLE
On Thursday 05 Jan 2006 22:46, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> Martin Spott wrote:
> >Hello Durk,
> >
> >Durk Talsma wrote:
> >>I still haven't firmly decided how ATC should interact with
> >> AI traffic, but that these systems should be integrated has
> >> always been part of my overarching design plan.
Martin Spott wrote:
Hello Durk,
Durk Talsma wrote:
I still haven't firmly decided how ATC should interact with AI traffic, but
that these systems should be integrated has always been part of my
overarching design plan. Since my AI developments are based on extending the
AIModels code, th
On Thursday 05 January 2006 21:13, Durk Talsma wrote:
> I haven't firmly
> decided yet, but I'm considering starting to tackle airway following code,
> which is in a way quite similar to the ground network.
Now that would be amazing. No other desktop sim has AI flying realistic
flightplans along
Am Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2006 23:32 schrieb Martin Spott:
> To me it's obvious why MP and AI are partially going to be merged some
> day, because both are 'exterior' sources of aircraft movement from the
> FlightGear users' point of view. If you think of integrating ATC with
> AI as well, then plea
Hello Durk,
Durk Talsma wrote:
> I still haven't firmly decided how ATC should interact with AI traffic, but
> that these systems should be integrated has always been part of my
> overarching design plan. Since my AI developments are based on extending the
> AIModels code, this would naturally
On Thursday 05 January 2006 14:55, Martin Spott wrote:
> In other words (with a not that negative touch) this would say: We'd
> appreciate if ATC/AI developers would keep such a scenario in mind when
> they plan changes to this stuff.
> You can't doubt that voice ATC is reality, not only in real li
On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 17:09 +, Martin Spott wrote:
> Oliver Schroeder wrote:
>
> > A RADAR station can be implemented as a listener to the server, so the
> > server
> > sends information of aircrafts to the radar just as to any other client.
> > Maybe I have to add some minor changes to th
Oliver Schroeder wrote:
> A RADAR station can be implemented as a listener to the server, so the
> server
> sends information of aircrafts to the radar just as to any other client.
> Maybe I have to add some minor changes to the server code, but all in all it
> should be pretty simple to crea
"Buchanan, Stuart" wrote:
> I feel slightly wary of voice-based comms within FG itself, if only
> because it is unlikely to be able to integrate within the current ATC/AI
> code.
In other words (with a not that negative touch) this would say: We'd
appreciate if ATC/AI developers would keep such a
On Thursday 05 January 2006 13:33, Erik Hofman wrote:
> Martin Spott wrote:
> > I'd like to underline these two points:
> > 1.) There won't be any volunteer who is serious about doing ATC
> > service as long as FlightGear does not have _appropriate_
> > capabilities. Appropriate capabiliti
Martin Spott wrote:
> As I understand the respective effort is already underway and simply
> just needs more time - which I appreciate very much because I'm a big
> fan of redundancy-avoidance :-)
when it comes to software design. Redundancy in the context of
data backups is a different st
Erik Hofman wrote:
> Martin Spott wrote:
>> I'd like to underline these two points:
>> 1.) There won't be any volunteer who is serious about doing ATC
>> service as long as FlightGear does not have _appropriate_
>> capabilities. Appropriate capabilities in my eyes includes
>> something
Martin Spott wrote:
I'd like to underline these two points:
1.) There won't be any volunteer who is serious about doing ATC
service as long as FlightGear does not have _appropriate_
capabilities. Appropriate capabilities in my eyes includes
something that resembles the functions of a
Hi all,
Yesterday I was thinking to try to model the
plane that Curt suggested but I think implementing a
voice ATC is much more pliable on my actual skills
"good C/C++ & researching the net for components/API
that can help me in achieving a scope & integrating
the API/components &
--- Martin Spott wrote:
> Christian Mayer wrote:
> > Martin Spott schrieb:
>
> >> Could you probably back this with an explanation ? Voice-based ATC is
> >> done all over the world, why should'nt FlightGear do this as well ?
> >
> > I understand the point that a real voice service does only mak
Christian Mayer wrote:
> Martin Spott schrieb:
>> Could you probably back this with an explanation ? Voice-based ATC is
>> done all over the world, why should'nt FlightGear do this as well ?
>
> I understand the point that a real voice service does only make sense
> when there is an ATC service (
Ben Clark wrote:
> [...] If multiplayer environments become crowded voice communications
> would be a perfect way to avoid collision. Maybe it would be a good idea to
> implement some ATC controls in FG (tracking radar with height, etc)
Didn't someone recently post the link to an OpenSource ATC a
Christian Mayer wrote:
> Only having a very brief look linux-wildo it seems to have potential.
> But it looks like is has only one developer - that might become a
> problem if he decides to spend his time differently.
^
"she her" :-)
Martin.
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Spott schrieb:
> "Ampere K. Hardraade" wrote:
>
>
>>Although voice communication would be a great addition to FlightGear, it is
>>going to be pretty useless feature.
>
>
> Could you probably back this with an explanation ? Voice-based ATC i
"Ampere K. Hardraade" wrote:
> Although voice communication would be a great addition to FlightGear, it is
> going to be pretty useless feature.
Could you probably back this with an explanation ? Voice-based ATC is
done all over the world, why should'nt FlightGear do this as well ?
Martin.
--
On January 4, 2006 06:59 pm, Ben Clark wrote:
> This would certainly be useful for people wanting to train up in air
> traffic control. If multiplayer environments become crowded voice
> communications would be a perfect way to avoid collision. Maybe it would be
> a good idea to implement some ATC
This would certainly be useful for people wanting to train up in air traffic control. If multiplayer environments become crowded voice communications would be a perfect way to avoid collision. Maybe it would be a good idea to implement some ATC controls in FG (tracking radar with height, etc), eith
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrea Vezzali schrieb:
> Hi All! Some time ago on the mailing list I read something about
> multiplayer's voice comunication, does anyone is working on that? If yes
> what is the state of development? I'm asking that because I found this
> GPL project
Martin Spott
> Andrea Vezzali wrote:
> > Hi All! Some time ago on the mailing list I read something about
> > multiplayer's voice comunication, does anyone is working on that?
>
> No, the solutions that people proposed in the past had been blessed
> with disregard by most FlightGear developers.
Andrea Vezzali wrote:
> Hi All! Some time ago on the mailing list I read something about
> multiplayer's voice comunication, does anyone is working on that?
No, the solutions that people proposed in the past had been blessed
with disregard by most FlightGear developers.
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Hi All! Some time ago on the mailing list I read something about
multiplayer's voice comunication, does anyone is working on that? If yes
what is the state of development? I'm asking that because I found this
GPL project http://linux-wildo.sourceforge.net/ that maybe interesting
for FG...
Andrea V
46 matches
Mail list logo
