Am Tuesday 19 July 2005 19:27 schrieb Harald JOHNSEN: > Oliver Schroeder wrote: > >1) "out of reach" > >[...] > I think the range should be user configurable.
So it's possibly a good idea to include a similar check in the flightgear client. The server does a precheck, i.e. does not send packets from clients which are for sure out of reach, and flightgear decides for itself if it is worth building up a property tree and display the other client or not. This would mean that flightgear is capable of building a property tree on the fly. But that way we can improve the multiclient capability of flightgear. It does not need to do any rendering of clients which are not in sight, but can bravely display them eg. on radar. The other way would be to implement special network packets which tell the server the, erm, "range of reach" of the client (and possibly other values which might be usefull). But for these packets we need a data-received-confirmation mechanism to make sure the server really got that value(s). > >2) chat messages > >[...] > As Pigeon said, make that a separate window, because the ATC line is > allready nearly impossible > to read ;) It should not be hard to code but the atc code is not good > for that (anyway it does not > queue messages). I don't think it's a good idea to handle chat messages in another way then messages from ATC (or any other type of "conversation"). There should be one interface for all types of messages and every "module" (currently ATC and maybe chat messages in the near future) should use it. Oliver _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
