On Friday 06 January 2006 09:02, Martin Spott wrote: > "Ampere K. Hardraade" wrote: > > I'm not saying FlightGear shouldn't do this. I'm saying that this is > > going to be a useless feature (for quite a long time) -- who is going to > > be the ATC? > > [...] > > > Learn to walk before you learn to run. Let's get things done right first > > before we try and do anything fancy. > > You put then whole idea question just because you don't know who would > do the ATC ? > > Doing things right (TM) is always an appealing argument. The real world > has voice ATC communication, so doing things right would imply doing > the same in FlightGear as well. But "doing things right" is not the > point here. In fact I know several people who use MSFS right because > there is the ability to do voice ATC, people who do flying in real life > as well. Personally I'm convinced we'll learn to run pretty quickly > once we have legs that also feature the "running" mode.
I think we are mixing different situations here. "Voice" and "ATC" are connected, on the other hand we have three different situtions, which need to be considered: 1) one user environment This is probably most used environment. In this situation we have no human ATC operator and flightgear has to jump in and do it alone. In this case the ATC can be text driven, and perhaps be enhanced by a text to speech system. 2) multiuser environment (multiplayer) In this environment things get complicated. The easiest way is to have human ATC operators which use some kind of VOIP application as discussed. And I really think that we should provide the necessary infrastructure, in that we tell people what software to install and what to configure to get things done. This can be done without _any_ change to flightgear itself. It will probably attract people who are simply interrested in ATC and not necessarily to a flightsimulation. Obviously a human driven ATC will interfere with any local driven non-human ATC. So... 3) multiuser, part II Mixing human and artificial ATC is IMHO very difficult. Assume we have some human ATC operators which provide ATC service for KSFO. I guess, they won't be able to supply a 24h service. However, in that case we must disable the artificial ATC for KSFO, but enable it for all other airports, since the user might be connected to the virtual world, but not flying around KSFO. I guess it will be sufficient to assume that in a multiplayer environment we will either have human ATC operators, or no need for ATC because there are not many people around a given airport. So a user can decide to dis-/enable local ATC whenever he wants. Just my 2 eurocent, Oliver ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
