RE: [Flightgear-devel] Partially Offtopic: Help open up the FSD protocol

2003-01-27 Thread Michael Basler
Mathew,

 The group is protected by an agreement, made between each
 developer and the
 group (as a whole) which prevents disclosure of privileged communications.

Neither my flying skills nor my spare time are sufficient for taking part in
Vatsim :-(

However, I know that there are a few competiting networks a la Vatsim
present or just emerging and I read several quite sharp debates (from
various parties) about stealing ideas, data, members from each other in
Newsgroups right now (instead of sharing services, members, controllers...).

While Vatsim certainly is a cool service with a huge member base and the
idea seems to be intriguing, I don't think this is the envirenment we want
for FG, isn't it?

If you can do it, I'd propose developing our own (albeit small) service. If
not more, than just a few controllers around KSFO as a proof of concept.

Regards, Michael

--
Michael Basler, Jena, Germany
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  http://www.geocities.com/pmb.geo/


___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel



Re: [Flightgear-devel] Partially Offtopic: Help open up the FSD protocol

2003-01-27 Thread James Turner

On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 01:27  pm, Michael Basler wrote:


Neither my flying skills nor my spare time are sufficient for taking 
part in
Vatsim :-(

Me too ...



However, I know that there are a few competiting networks a la Vatsim
present or just emerging and I read several quite sharp debates (from
various parties) about stealing ideas, data, members from each other 
in
Newsgroups right now (instead of sharing services, members, 
controllers...).

There's also IVAO? which is a different group but uses the same software


If you can do it, I'd propose developing our own (albeit small) 
service. If
not more, than just a few controllers around KSFO as a proof of 
concept.

The problem will all these system, as I see it, is the lack of people 
willing to control. What I think would work much better is a web of 
servers, but with the ATC manned by AIs. Of course in the long run 
people could write a controller client and take over from the AI at a 
position, but basically the system could function happily without any 
human controllers. Now, writing those ATC AIs is non-trivial, but it's 
something that's in the pipe-line anyway.

This also suggest a 'Quake-like' approach for local traffic and ATC : 
simply start a local server running the ATC ai and some plane AIs, and 
connect the main program to it over loopback. (Quake-like as in this is 
how every modern first-person shooter based on Quake or Unreal is set 
up. Bots on the server are indiscernible from other live players, and 
single-player works as expected, but is in fact running a server too).

Comments?
HH
James

--
The lack of planning on your part does not constitute to an emergency 
on mine



___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel