[Flightgear-devel] multiplayer patch #3

2005-10-30 Thread Oliver Schroeder
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer, the next steps

2005-10-24 Thread Mathias Fröhlich
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 wrong.

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer, the next steps

2005-10-24 Thread Vivian Meazza
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 FGAICarrier

[Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer, the next steps

2005-10-23 Thread Oliver Schroeder
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer ports

2005-10-17 Thread Oliver Schroeder
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 just

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer ports

2005-10-16 Thread Vassilii Khachaturov
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 peer-to-peer

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer ports

2005-10-16 Thread Andy Ross
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 you

[Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer ports

2005-10-15 Thread Jim Campbell
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer ports

2005-10-15 Thread Arnt Karlsen
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 ahead a

Re: [Flightgear-devel] multiplayer patch for enianess

2005-08-16 Thread Mathias Fröhlich
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Location Transformation toLat/Lon/Alt

2005-08-16 Thread Mathias Fröhlich
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer VATSIM-IVAO Network

2005-08-15 Thread Oliver Schroeder
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

[Flightgear-devel] multiplayer patch for enianess

2005-08-15 Thread Oliver Schroeder
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).

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Location Transformation toLat/Lon/Alt

2005-08-14 Thread Jim Alberico
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 we

[Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer VATSIM-IVAO Network

2005-08-14 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer VATSIM-IVAO Network

2005-08-14 Thread Erik Hofman
[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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer VATSIM-IVAO Network

2005-08-14 Thread Dave Martin
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 interface

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer VATSIM-IVAO Network

2005-08-14 Thread Martin Spott
[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 in

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer VATSIM-IVAO Network

2005-08-14 Thread Andy Ross
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,

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer VATSIM-IVAO Network

2005-08-14 Thread John Wojnaroski
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...

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Location Transformation to Lat/Lon/Alt

2005-08-13 Thread Mathias Fröhlich
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

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Location Transformation to Lat/Lon/Alt

2005-08-11 Thread Vivian Meazza
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 player

Re: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Location Transformation to

2005-08-11 Thread wholezoo
From: Vivian Meazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/08/11 Thu AM 07:26:23 EDT To: 'FlightGear developers discussions' flightgear-devel@flightgear.org Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Location Transformation to Lat/Lon/Alt Alberico Family Jim Wilson did a good job

[Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Location Transformation to Lat/Lon/Alt

2005-08-10 Thread Alberico Family
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

[Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer crashes with unknown aircrafts, any solution?

2005-07-15 Thread Roberto Inzerillo
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] multiplayer doesn't work properly

2004-06-10 Thread Jorge Van Hemelryck
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] multiplayer doesn't work properly

2004-06-09 Thread Jorge Van Hemelryck
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] multiplayer doesn't work properly

2004-06-09 Thread Ampere K. Hardraade
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 development.

[Flightgear-devel] multiplayer doesn't work properly

2004-06-08 Thread Michael Matkovic
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

[Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer

2004-04-24 Thread Chris Horler
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]

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer

2004-04-24 Thread Erik Hofman
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

[Flightgear-devel] multiplayer status and idea (Long)

2004-02-04 Thread Adam Boggs
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

[Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer synchronisation

2003-11-25 Thread Michael Matkovic
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

[Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer FlightGear

2003-11-21 Thread Luca Masera
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer FlightGear

2003-11-21 Thread Frederic BOUVIER
* 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 lack

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer RFC -- wire protocol spec -- preliminary

2003-11-13 Thread Gerhard Wesp
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:

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer RFC -- wire protocol spec --preliminary

2003-11-13 Thread John Barrett
- 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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer RFC -- wire protocol spec -- preliminary

2003-11-13 Thread Gene Buckle
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 bandwidth.

[Flightgear-devel] [Multiplayer] Oh where Oh where .......

2003-11-12 Thread John Barrett
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Multiplayer] Oh where Oh where .......

2003-11-12 Thread Erik Hofman
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Multiplayer] Oh where Oh where .......

2003-11-12 Thread Erik Hofman
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Multiplayer] Oh where Oh where .......

2003-11-12 Thread John Barrett
- 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 Hofman wrote: John Barrett wrote: I'm pretty

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Multiplayer] Oh where Oh where .......

2003-11-12 Thread John Barrett
- 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 ... - Original Message - From: Erik Hofman [EMAIL

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Multiplayer] Oh where Oh where .......

2003-11-12 Thread Gene Buckle
(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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Multiplayer] Oh where Oh where .......

2003-11-12 Thread Curtis L. Olson
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 roll

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Multiplayer] Oh where Oh where .......

2003-11-12 Thread John Barrett
- 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 its just the one plane, once I get it to fly

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Multiplayer] Oh where Oh where .......

2003-11-12 Thread Erik Hofman
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Multiplayer] Oh where Oh where .......

2003-11-12 Thread Curtis L. Olson
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'

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Multiplayer] Oh where Oh where .......

2003-11-12 Thread David Culp
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. There

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Multiplayer] Oh where Oh where .......

2003-11-12 Thread John Barrett
- 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 current code -- there is just the single airplane

Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Multiplayer] Oh where Oh where .......

2003-11-12 Thread David Luff
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-11 Thread Erik Hofman
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-11 Thread Gene Buckle
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 building

[Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-11 Thread Ima Sudonim
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-11 Thread David Culp
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 [EMAIL

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Erik Hofman
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Erik Hofman
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Martin Spott
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 like

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Jim Wilson
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 airport.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread John Barrett
- 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 code

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Gene Buckle
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 me

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Jim Wilson
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 in case

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Gene Buckle
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread John Barrett
- 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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Paul Surgeon
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

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Curtis L. Olson
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's

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Norman Vine
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.

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Gene Buckle
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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread John Barrett
- 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 Monday, 10 November 2003 21:14, Gene Buckle wrote

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Gene Buckle
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 sky'

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Gene Buckle
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 In

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Paul Surgeon
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++, 2nd

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Gene Buckle
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 just

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Curtis L. Olson
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, VB Pick. My

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Paul Surgeon
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 support

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread John Barrett
- 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 think a dynamic shared library system that lets an a/c

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Gene Buckle
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.)

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Gene Buckle
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 object

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Gene Buckle
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/data local to

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread John Barrett
- 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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Gene Buckle
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. If the

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread John Barrett
- 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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Gene Buckle
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 sim via

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Jim Wilson
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 anyone

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-10 Thread Andy Ross
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 that

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status [now C++]

2003-11-10 Thread Major A
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 declares

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status [now C++]

2003-11-10 Thread Gene Buckle
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 getting it

[Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer -- wire protocol implementation

2003-11-09 Thread John Barrett
http://www.camelot-software.com/fgfs/fgmps.tar Here is the patch and source files for the preliminary wire protocol implementation -- comments and suggestions welcome -- untar in the directory containing the FGFS source directory, apply the patch, autogen, configure --with-multiserver, and make

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer -- wire protocol implementation

2003-11-09 Thread Erik Hofman
John Barrett wrote: At the moment, I'm planning to build in my own socket classes to handle the net connections, as they are designed to handle multiple connections in a polling environment -- unless someone can point me at existing code in FG / SimGear / PLib thats up to handling multiple socket

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer -- wire protocol implementation

2003-11-09 Thread Norman Vine
John Barrett writes: At the moment, I'm planning to build in my own socket classes to handle the net connections, as they are designed to handle multiple connections in a polling environment -- unless someone can point me at existing code in FG / SimGear / PLib thats up to handling multiple

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer -- wire protocol implementation

2003-11-09 Thread John Barrett
- Original Message - From: Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] PLib/src/net is a 'reasonably' efficient implementation of using polling in a multiple connection environment :-) The 'loop' is in netChanel.cxx SimGear sockets and are built ontop of PLib/Net as is the FGFS http server,

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer -- wire protocol implementation

2003-11-09 Thread Norman Vine
John Barrett writes: From: Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] PLib/src/net is a 'reasonably' efficient implementation of using polling in a multiple connection environment :-) Guess I have enuf to do the server framework and initial handshake between client and server Might want to ask any

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer -- wire protocol implementation

2003-11-09 Thread Andy Ross
John Barrett wrote: Here is the patch and source files for the preliminary wire protocol implementation -- comments and suggestions welcome This sounds fun, so I grabbed it and had a peek. One bug report in messagebuf.cxx, which has some code that I can't figure out: void

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer -- wire protocol implementation

2003-11-09 Thread John Barrett
- Original Message - From: Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 11:59 AM Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer -- wire protocol implementation John Barrett wrote: Here is the patch and source files

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer -- wire protocol implementation

2003-11-09 Thread John Barrett
- Original Message - From: Norman Vine [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 11:58 AM Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer -- wire protocol implementation John Barrett writes: From: Norman Vine [EMAIL

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-09 Thread Curtis L. Olson
Jonathan Richards writes: What I value about FlightGear is that it attempts to *simulate* the real world and aviation in it. The landscapes and the airports are realistic, the weather is (can be made) realistic, the celestial objects are realistic, the flight dynamics themselves are

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-09 Thread Jon Berndt
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 airport. I guess there ought to be an explicit

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-09 Thread John Barrett
- Original Message - From: Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-09 Thread Curtis L. Olson
John Barrett writes: Would a --no-combat option on the server be acceptable ?? (i.e. someone can pull the trigger, but it wont do anything to the multiplayer world -- they could still use you for a target, but you would never see the ordinance) That sounds reasonable. I would add the

RE: [Flightgear-devel] Multiplayer Server RFC -- Current Status

2003-11-09 Thread Jon Berndt
John Barrett writes: Would a --no-combat option on the server be acceptable ?? (i.e. someone can pull the trigger, but it wont do anything to the multiplayer world -- they could still use you for a target, but you would never see the ordinance) That sounds reasonable. I would add

  1   2   3   >