Hi List,
I released a new patch which can be found here:
http://www.o-schroeder.de/fg_server/mp-os3.patch
It is mainly an intermediate patch. I've restructured the network code. You
can savely remove the following files from src/Multiplayer after the patch:
multiplayrxmgr.cxx
multiplayrxmgr.hxx
Mathias Fröhlich wrote
Oliver Schroeder wrote:
...snip
> > 3) sending properties for the carrier (Nimitz)
> > In order to prepare flightgear to send abitary properties, I think the
> > carrier is predestined. Everything we need is almost already there. What
> we
> > need is a method in FGAICarr
Hi Oliver,
On Sonntag 23 Oktober 2005 23:56, Oliver Schroeder wrote:
> after some discussions here on the list, but most of the time on irc, I
> have drawn some conclusions on how to improve the multiplayer mode. So,
> here they are. Feel free to flame me on any part which might be awfully
> wron
Hi List,
after some discussions here on the list, but most of the time on irc, I have
drawn some conclusions on how to improve the multiplayer mode. So, here they
are. Feel free to flame me on any part which might be awfully wrong.
1) I'm currently restructoring the network code. There will be
Am Saturday 15 October 2005 11:30 schrieb Jim Campbell:
> Anyone transmitting un-encrypted data across a world wide internet (as
> opposed to a "private" intranet) needs to think ahead a little. Every
> hacker will be rubbing their hands with glee before trying to hit you
> on these ports you have
Jim Campbell wrote:
> Anyone transmitting un-encrypted data across a world wide
> internet needs to think ahead a little. Every hacker will be
> rubbing their hands with glee before trying to hit you on these
> ports you have just announced.
> [...]
This really isn't much of an issue. The attack
> > Anyone transmitting un-encrypted data across a world wide internet (as
> > opposed to a "private" intranet) needs to think ahead a little. Every
> >
> > hacker will be rubbing their hands with glee before trying to hit you
> > on these ports you have just announced. A server/client or even
> >
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:30:44 +0100, Jim wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi guys,
> Without wishing to start a flame war and perhaps starting another
> thread!!
> Anyone transmitting un-encrypted data across a world wide internet (as
> opposed to a "private" intranet) needs to think ahea
Hi guys,
Without wishing to start a flame war and perhaps starting another
thread!!
Anyone transmitting un-encrypted data across a world wide internet (as
opposed to a "private" intranet) needs to think ahead a little. Every
hacker will be rubbing their hands with glee before trying to hit you
Hi,
> Is there a plan to switch to OSG? Just wondering. I didn't know.
I do not know of concrete plans, but here and then there are roumors.
I for my own would apprecheate that, since it looks very promising.
... also a few weeks ago a small cvs checkin with some 'flightgear' path in it
slippe
Ok, this is *way* better than what was there before!
Thanks so far!
What I have problems with is that, as long as you use a struct for the whole
message, the compiler is free to do alignment decisions different than your
expectations on it.
I posted, at the time of the first attempts to fix th
Hi,
I've written a patch that _should_ solve issues with endianess in
multiplayermode, which can be found at:
http://www.o-schroeder.de/fg_server/patch.php
Please try it out. Multiplayermode will still be broken on non
IEEE-encoding platforms (eg. Motorola 68XXX, vax, some DEC-alphas).
Sinc
Hi.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all!
Yes, I know this topic has already been discussed and I know
also that someone of you is working on the FG multiplayer code...
anyway I think that it will be an advantage to the FG comunity to
interface to IVAO and/or VATSIM networks.
To implement VAT
You might want to go back and check the email archives almost a year
ago. We had discussions with the VATSIMfolks and it went nowhere. There
was some thought of starting a development for FG using the TNL
libraries, set up a small network test, but it all faded away due to
lack of interest...
It's not about security
jvrvez wrote:
> Ok, They don't want that a GPL tools is used to interface their
> network for secutity reasons (I think this is understandable)
> anyway why can't we join their network with their own code?
This is a non-starter. There is simply no way to make this work,
s
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
> [...] I think that it will be an advantage to the FG comunity to
> interface to IVAO and/or VATSIM networks. Ok, They don't want that a
> GPL tools is used to interface their network for secutity reasons
For security reasons ? What a joke Indeed, participating
On Sunday 14 August 2005 21:56, Erik Hofman wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi all!
> > Yes, I know this topic has already been discussed and I know
> > also that someone of you is working on the FG multiplayer code...
> > anyway I think that it will be an advantage to the FG comunity to
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all!
Yes, I know this topic has already been discussed and I know
also that someone of you is working on the FG multiplayer code...
anyway I think that it will be an advantage to the FG comunity to
interface to IVAO and/or VATSIM networks. Ok, They don't want that a
Hi all!
Yes, I know this topic has already been discussed and I know
also that someone of you is working on the FG multiplayer code...
anyway I think that it will be an advantage to the FG comunity to
interface to IVAO and/or VATSIM networks. Ok, They don't want that a
GPL tools is used to inte
> Well, if my hackery here must server as a reference for that, I think we
> should improove the framework around that stuff and we should
> document that
> better.
> By improoving that framework, I can well imagine to abstract from
> the vector
> classes provided from plib, so that for that time
On Donnerstag 11 August 2005 13:26, Vivian Meazza wrote:
> Look in src/AIModel/AICarrier.cxx - there are several examples of
> conversions from Cartesian co-ordinates to geodetic and vice versa.
>
> There are a wide range of utilities in simgear/math.cxx. The comments are
> in the most part self-ex
>
> From: "Vivian Meazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/08/11 Thu AM 07:26:23 EDT
> To: "'FlightGear developers discussions'"
> Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Location Transformation to
> Lat/Lon/Alt
>
> Alberi
Alberico Family
> Jim Wilson did a good job of pointing me in the right direction toward
> making views attached to players in a multiplayer scenario.
>
> I attack it today and made good progress, but remain bogged down by the
> transformations required. Bottom line is I need to take the 4x4 pla
Good evening from GMT-6.
Jim Wilson did a good job of pointing me in the right direction toward
making views attached to players in a multiplayer scenario.
I attack it today and made good progress, but remain bogged down by the
transformations required. Bottom line is I need to take the 4x4 play
Hi, I was playing with Oliver Schroeder's multiplayer FGFS server. I
like this stuff :-)
But FGFS crashes every time a new user joins the server with an aircraft
which is not in my dir tree. The problem is common to many people who
used this multiplayer mode.
Is there any chance we can get a
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 17:39:08 -0400
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
> Could there be a connection between this and the problem pointed out by Dave
> in the Air Refueling thread?
There probably is a connection. Actually, to be more precise than in my
last post, it's not the delay itself that causes the
Could there be a connection between this and the problem pointed out by Dave
in the Air Refueling thread?
Regards,
Ampere
On June 9, 2004 02:02 pm, Jorge Van Hemelryck wrote:
> I wouldn't say that "multiplayer doesn't work properly", I'd rather say
> that it's still in early stages of developmen
I wouldn't say that "multiplayer doesn't work properly", I'd rather say
that it's still in early stages of development. The effect you see is
probably due to the delay due to sending packets across the network. You
see movement of the other aircraft along its axis because you try and
match the velo
I'm not sure if this is an isolated problem I'm experiencing, or is
every flightgear user (using multiplayer) quietly in denial about the
poor performance of the multiplayer option???
I speak of the jittery, unstable presence of the 'other plane' when
using flightgear on one PC or across the ne
Chris Horler wrote:
Gents,
Has anyone tried multiplayer?
I haven't, but wondered if any representation of other a/c was in the property
tree?
Not yet, but if the multiplayer code starts using the AIModel code it
will. This hasn't been done and (although I would like to) I don't think
I can find
Gents,
Has anyone tried multiplayer?
I haven't, but wondered if any representation of other a/c was in the property
tree?
Thanks,
Chris.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-dev
Hello folks,
I have been interested in working on a multiplayer server for
FlightGear. Apparently there is a huge amount of interest in such
a thing, but I haven't found anything functional yet. I did a little
bit of research on what is out there. here's a summary of what I
found, let me know
Im not sure if I posted this question once before... well here it goes
again :-D
Using the --multiplay option I've tried having 2 planes fly closely in
formation. My version of flightgear has been changed so that at each
frame, a seperate controlling program (via socket connection) issues a
ne
* Luca Masera wrote:
> I'm new here.
Welcome
> I'm trying to use FlightGear as the core of a distribuited
> flight simulator. I've a great problem about the loading
> of more then one aircraft (I've read something about it in
> the developers digest, but I didn't understand much) and
> the l
Hi,
I'm new here. I'm trying to use FlightGear as the core of a distribuited flight
simulator. I've a great problem about the loading of more then one aircraft (I've read
something about it in the developers digest, but I didn't understand much) and the
lack of documentation about multiplayer s
> > Unless there are objections, byte order is little endian, and floats
> > are intel FPU standard (ok -- i'm making it easy on the PCs that will
> > likely be used to run display clients :)
>
> Is there any specific reason not to use human readable messages (i.e.,
> ASCII)?
>
It's a waste of ban
- Original Message -
From: "Gerhard Wesp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer RFC -- wire protocol
spec --preliminary
>
> Unless there are objections, byte order is little endian, and floats are intel FPU
> standard (ok -- i'm making it easy on the PCs that will likely be used to run
> display clients :)
Is there any specific reason not to use human readable messages (i.e.,
ASCII)?
Regards,
-Gerhard
--
| voice:
On 11/12/03 at 8:08 PM John Barrett wrote:
>
>Sounds good -- like most of what I'm looking for is there -- would
>definitly
>like to look over the code and see how much work to hook it into my
network
>setup
>
Sorry - I thought you were looking for an fdm-autopilot based solution,
else I'd have me
- Original Message -
From: "David Culp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Multiplayer] Oh where Oh where ...
> In the curre
> In the current code -- there is just the single airplane being simulated on
> the display ?? or where could I find a list/array of a/c that are being
> managed so I can register each plane with the server and have the server
> relay updates for all of them ??
Look in the src/ATC directory. Ther
John Barrett wrote:
> what I'm asking is "everything looks like it works through globals
> rather than discrete instances of aircraft+fdm+autopilot -- am I
> looking at a serious architectural change to get multiple
> independent ac+fdm+ap simulated concurrently ??"
Pretty sure, yeah. :)
The last
Erik Hofman writes:
> I vote for pushing NetworkOLK to the bitkeeper by now.
Yes, I'll second that, with appropriate thanks to Oliver for being the
first one forge his way down that path.
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project
Twin Citiescurt 'at' me.umn.
Andy Ross wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
I think that needs a bit more thought. Most FDM's are just too heavy
for having a lot of them work together. I think we need a NULL FDM
with autopilot support for that.
Exactly. It seems to me like we're swimming in half-finished
multiplayer/multiaircraft/ne
John Barrett wrote:
> In the current code -- there is just the single airplane being
> simulated on the display ?? or where could I find a list/array of a/c
> that are being managed so I can register each plane with the server
> and have the server relay updates for all of them ??
Um, isn't that t
- Original Message -
From: "Gene Buckle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Multiplayer] Oh where Oh where ...
> > (if it
John Barrett writes:
> when you say "null fdm + autopilot" -- it doenst appear the null FDM is a
> plane at all - wouldnt it make more sense to use the full FDM code with
> scripting to drive the existing autopilot code ?? i.e. script sets desired
> altitude, heading, speed, limits on pitch yaw rol
> (if its just the one plane, once I get it to fly multiplayer, my focus will
> be to add multiple/AI plane support to the code, so comments towards
> achieving that goal will be welcome also)
>
I think it would make sense to have the server handle any non-human
controlled vehicles. It would keep
- Original Message -
From: "John Barrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Multiplayer] Oh where Oh where ...
> - Or
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Hofman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlightGear developers discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 4:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Multiplayer] Oh where Oh where ...
> Erik H
Erik Hofman wrote:
John Barrett wrote:
I'm pretty much done with the client/server startup handshake -- ready
to do
the code at the peer to register active aircraft with the server
(active =
aircraft for which this FG peer is responsible for FDM calcs, the
protocol
supports the idea of multiple
John Barrett wrote:
I'm pretty much done with the client/server startup handshake -- ready to do
the code at the peer to register active aircraft with the server (active =
aircraft for which this FG peer is responsible for FDM calcs, the protocol
supports the idea of multiple aircraft sharing a sin
I'm pretty much done with the client/server startup handshake -- ready to do
the code at the peer to register active aircraft with the server (active =
aircraft for which this FG peer is responsible for FDM calcs, the protocol
supports the idea of multiple aircraft sharing a single server connectio
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
OK, while I'm an avowed lurker, I find that this thread has even more
possibilities
While I certainly want realistic flight performance of A/C to be the
priority (I hope to learn to fly a real plane someday -- probably in my
next life 8-( -- and I'd love it if my FG experience could translate t
> > 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
Could you describe the --headless option (Phase 1 changes)?
Sounds a little like what I'm trying to get Flightgear to do.
/
/I was hoping to have multiple airplanes (each controlled by an individual program), each being updated
once per video render instead of having independent execution frequenc
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
1 - 100 of 250 matches
Mail list logo
