Yes I would prefer an ac+fdm+autopilot solution strictly
for realism purposes -- but anything that instances planes controled by
FG needs to be hooked into my network code so that ac status updates can
be made visible to all other participants. AIPlane
definitly meets some of my needs
- Original Message -
From: David Luff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 5:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
I not trying to put you off - I welcome all efforts in this area
The only reason I'm not done with the fly together code is I'm packing
to
move from Kentucky to Texas this weekend
Good move. :-) ;-)
Where in Texas?
Jon
(Houston)
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11/13/03 at 8:13 AM John Barrett wrote:
The only reason I'm not done with the fly together code is I'm packing
to
move from Kentucky to Texas this weekend -- there is a uhaul in front of
my
apartment stacked to the ceiling with stuff and we still got loading yet
to
do today :)
I'm looking
- Original Message -
From: Jon Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 8:33 AM
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
The only reason I'm not done with the fly together code is I'm
- Original Message -
From: David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 11:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
I would like to request your ideas and wishes for an aircraft AI
John Barrett writes:
on (climbrate 100) {
elevators--;
}
on (climbrate 100) {
elevators++;
}
Look out below (and above) which ever comes first! :-)
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project
Twin
- Original Message -
From: John Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
on (speed = 140) {
elevators = 20; // pull
On 11/13/03 at 8:15 AM Curtis L. Olson wrote:
John Barrett writes:
on (climbrate 100) {
elevators--;
}
on (climbrate 100) {
elevators++;
}
Look out below (and above) which ever comes first! :-)
I used to try flying the Navion like
- Original Message -
From: David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
Ok -- all you have done is state that takeoff is a procedure
John Barrett writes:
Very different indeed -- I'm trying to model the pilots deciscion processes
and interactions at a general level sufficient to write procedures to do
ANYTHING that can be done with a plane. Directly controlling an aircraft via
FDM just insures that the generic procedures
John Barrett wrote:
- Original Message -
From: David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
[Dave's message
David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Ok -- all you have done is state that takeoff is a procedure to be followed
without defining the procedure (i.e. its hard coded and there is no
variation from that procedure)
Actually, I don't see a need for the AI airplanes to have brakes, elevators,
- Original Message -
From: Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
John Barrett writes:
Very different indeed -- I'm trying
- Original Message -
From: Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
John Barrett wrote:
- Original Message -
From: David Culp
- Original Message -
From: Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 10:46 AM
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
[Starting a new thread. John's reply was burried in the parent thread]
John Barrett writes:
And I envision a client that handles multiple AI aircraft on behalf of a
server thats plenty busy enuf handling message passing and other management
functionality (this client really it could be considered part of the
server, but so much of the code is the same compared to
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
John Barrett writes:
And I envision a client that handles multiple AI aircraft on behalf of a
server thats plenty busy enuf handling message passing and other management
functionality (this client really it could be considered part of the
server, but so much of the code is
- Original Message -
From: Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
John Barrett writes:
And I envision a client that handles
Without a scenario loaded, or a
connection to a server, its just you all by your lonesome (which I had
thought was the situation given my experience loading up FG and flying
around with the default settings)
The AI already in place is little used because it's tied to one airport and
needs
- Original Message -
From: David Culp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
Without a scenario loaded, or a
connection to a server, its just
On 11/13/03 at 1:48 PM John Barrett wrote:
Why is an interactive session by default generating AI aircraft without
a
loaded scenario to control those aircraft ?? The server should be
loading
the scenario. Having an airport spawn aircraft just because someone is
close
by the airport should not be a
John Barrett wrote:
Why is an interactive session by default generating AI aircraft
without a loaded scenario to control those aircraft ??
David Luff wrote:
Um, my plan was actually to have the sim spawn appropriate random
aircraft as the user gets near, and to have each airport populated
- Original Message -
From: Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] ACScript RFC (or FGScript ??)
John Barrett writes:
Why is an interactive session by default
Andy Ross writes:
So long as you two don't share code at the top level, and instead are
simply using the same foundations, you won't care. By analogy: hand
two kids a box of legos and they can both play happily. Hand them the
same blocks in the form of a space cruiser and you have a fight.
John Barrett writes:
Why is an interactive session by default generating AI aircraft without a
loaded scenario to control those aircraft ?? The server should be loading
the scenario. Having an airport spawn aircraft just because someone is close
by the airport should not be a default behavior
On 11/13/03 at 12:50 PM Andy Ross wrote:
John Barrett wrote:
Why is an interactive session by default generating AI aircraft
without a loaded scenario to control those aircraft ??
David Luff wrote:
Um, my plan was actually to have the sim spawn appropriate random
aircraft as the user gets
David Luff writes:
Younger (still destructive) kid went to bed early the other night, so I got
to play Lego (Duplo - the next size up bricks) with slightly older kid
only. My wife seemed somewhat surprised to find a tower stretching from
floor to ceiling when she got in, held in place at the
On 11/13/03 at 2:53 PM Curtis L. Olson wrote:
My little brothers would always destroy my lego creations the instant
I turned my back in order to build their own. Grrr ... :-)
Younger (still destructive) kid went to bed early the other night, so I got
to play Lego (Duplo - the next size up
- Original Message -
From: David Luff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FlightGear developers discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Multiplayer] Oh where Oh where ...
On 11/12/03 at 8:08 PM John Barrett wrote:
Sounds good
I would like to request your ideas and wishes for an aircraft AI scripting
language sufficiently generic in scope to handle piloting any aircraft
running on FG.
My generalized AI airplanes were originally going to be defined in
preferences.xml (like the ai-tanker), something like this for
31 matches
Mail list logo
