> I see another issue here. Even if the licensing issue is solved, there would > still be problems. For example, planes hovering/submerging on taxiways and > runways, because both us and MSFS have different scenery. To avoid this > problem, we would have to force MSFS to use our better scenery. Who's up for > that task?
That's a current problem between MSFS and X-Plane as well, and I'm told that it's a shortcoming of the VATSIM protocol, which doesn't define the reference point to be used. I personally don't see this as a problem as I don't normally care about other planes other than when I want to avoid a collision, and a little offset is irrelevant to that. I agree with Ben that it will be very hard to build a community from scratch, even if clients for a GPL network were available for MSFS and/or X-Plane. We'd need a good training and evaluation scheme for ATC as well, which takes a very long time to set up, and VATSIM already has that. As to my suggestion of linking FG and X-Plane to fly FG on VATSIM, I haven't forgotten the project but haven't actually got a working installation of X-Plane under Linux that would allow me to write a plugin. I'll try and carry on with that once I have X-Plane running again (actually, it's the OpenGL acceleration that currently isn't working on my computer, thanks to ATI being a year behind Linux and Xorg development). As to IVAO, it appears to be a much smaller community that VATSIM, so it's not even worth talking about in this context. Andras _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
