--- Jonathan Wagner wrote:
These are not dogfight-only problems. These are multiplayer problems
which currently are not addressed well in the current multiplayer
implementation. On the public servers with high latency, multiplayer
flight can be choppy as a plane in your view magically
Gene Buckle wrote:
Personally I'd go crazy in the real Cessna if it would take me one
third of a second until the beast starts !! responding to a control
movement - this would turn almost every landing at gusty crosswind into
a really difficult situation
Martin, the 300ms figure
Stuart wrote:
I think our current MP architecture is superb for the following reasons:
- Setting it up is straightforward
- it is light-weight. The load on the client and server is low -
personally I have it switched on permanently - so people are encouraged to
use it for general flying, even if
Martin, the 300ms figure is really only applicable to a Level A simulator
which is basically equivalent to a cockpit procedures trainer with no
visuals.
Ok - that one makes sense. On the other hand, any type of 'tricky' VFR
flight with 300 ms delay, I'd expect even with 150 ms would ruin
Emmanuel,
Markus Zojer wrote:
I really enjoy the flight with this plane, especially the 110kts
landings :-)
I noticed, that the sim model is not in sync with the 3d model, so I
changed Models/c130.xml to
pathc130.ac/path
offsets
x-m 17.0 /x-m (was 0)
y-m 0.0 /y-m
z-m
Hi,
Gene Buckle wrote:
Martin, the 300ms figure is really only applicable to a Level A simulator
which is basically equivalent to a cockpit procedures trainer with no
visuals.
Ok - that one makes sense. On the other hand, any type of 'tricky' VFR
flight with 300 ms delay, I'd expect even
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ralf Gerlich
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:23 AM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
Hi,
Gene Buckle wrote:
Martin, the 300ms
On Mon 14 May 2007 16:18, Martin Spott wrote:
Emmanuel,
Markus Zojer wrote:
I really enjoy the flight with this plane, especially the 110kts
landings :-)
I noticed, that the sim model is not in sync with the 3d model, so I
changed Models/c130.xml to
pathc130.ac/path
offsets
Sometime ago my radar patch introduced a valid property to ai models.
Attached patch updates the code drawing the HUD target circles to test
this flag so that invalid entries don't get displayed.
Thanks to AnMaster for reporting and testing.
Greets,
Csaba
Index:
Removed leading slashes from gear properties.
Didn't have a chance to try it yet.
Greets,
Csaba
Index: data/Aircraft/747/Models/boeing747-400-jw.xml
===
RCS file:
On 5/14/07, Bill Galbraith wrote:
If I remember correctly, the human eye can detect something less than
about
15-20 fps.
The number that comes to my mind is about 22? Movies that you'd see in a
theater run at 24 fps I believe.
One aditional element though that is *critical* is that this
On 5/10/07, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
--- Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Maybe the changelog should be on the wiki for fixes/extensions?
An excellent use of the wiki - done. I've merged the data and simgear logs
together here along with the feedback I've seen so far:
Stuart Buchanan wrote:
--- Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Maybe the changelog should be on the wiki for fixes/extensions?
An excellent use of the wiki - done. I've merged the data and simgear logs
together here along with the feedback I've seen so far:
Curtis Olson wrote:
On 5/9/07, Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stuart Buchanan wrote:
Major Changes
=
[...]
Airport runway and taxi signs
This reminds me of something related:
For my taste it's time to put an update to the airports list into the
base
On 5/14/07, Martin Spott wrote:
which appears now to have started. If nobody objects, then I'll go
ahead putting the current Airport and Navaid stuff into the base
package,
Double check there isn't any x-plane 8.50 bezier stuff in the version we use
since we really aren't setup to use
You guys might want to give this a read. I found it helpful as an
introduction when I was looking at this multiplayer stuff a few years ago:
http://www.valve-erc.com/srcsdk/general/multiplayer_networking.html
Because of their fast-paced competitive nature, First Person Shooters have
extremely
Since today there's a function systime() available. It returns
the Unix Epoch time in seconds. Even if that doesn't tell you much,
it's very useful for benchmarking:
var start = systime();
how_fast_am_I(123);
var end = systime();
print(took , end - start, seconds);
The function has
Hi all,
I use the property sim/time/elapsed-sec in the S76C to calculate fuel flow as
there is no helicopter engine yet ... and noticed a very inconsistant
behavior... dont know if its related to the 'framerate hesitation' problem ...
but would like to know if anyone else sees the 'un-smooth'
Hi,
On Saturday 12 May 2007, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
While development over the past few years might give the preception that
Flightgear is a game, Flightgear is actually meant to be a serious flight
simulator. Things that go boom are cool in games, but they are also
useless; more so in
Hi,
On Friday 11 May 2007, Martin Spott wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Well, as the Irish would say, if you want to get there, you don't want to
start here. Good luck. And if you want to see how much work would be
involved, compare that task with the cutover to osg - now 6 months old
and
On Friday 11 May 2007, Gene Buckle wrote:
The problem is one of network latency. This has been a major hurdle for
games like Aces High, Air Warrior and WWII Online. The server should
handle the collision to avoid situations where the shooter client sees a
hit and the shootee client doesn't.
On Sunday 13 May 2007, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
On Sunday 13 May 2007 13:18, Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
If the server does the fdm 100 times per second and send the data 10
times per second it's like if the client was running the fdm at 10 hz.
That's why I said it's not needed to run the fdm
The E3B engines are currently defined as having a thrust of 18000 Lbs. A
google search indicates that the per engine thrust should be 21000 Lbs.
If this is verified as being true, the attached patch should correct the
associated E3B/Engines/JT3D.xml file.
--
Reagan Thomas
? E3B.diff
?
On Sunday 13 May 2007, Jonathan Wagner wrote:
Maik,
These are not dogfight-only problems. These are multiplayer problems
which currently are not addressed well in the current multiplayer
implementation. On the public servers with high latency, multiplayer
flight can be choppy as a plane in
On Monday 14 May 2007 04:38, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
If what you are suggesting is that to use MP, we will have to run the FDM
on a server and accept a much lower refresh rate on the client, then I
don't think that is acceptable as it will make the civil MP experience
much worse.
This isn't as
Yes and no. The NATO/USAFE E3Bs should have TF33-PW-100 engines
producing 21000 lbs thrust(1), not JT3D engines which produce 18000 lbs
thrust. The JT3D engine is used on the 707-320B (2) which is the basis
of the E3B. An RAF, FAF or RSAF E3B should be using CFM56 turbofans
producing 24000 lbs
26 matches
Mail list logo
