Harald,
You are correct, solution #1 does require the server to run all of the FDM
for all players in multiplayer mode.
However, I think you are incorrect about additions or adjustments to the
FDM. When using FG in single player mode, the player has both the client
and server on the same machine. The difference is that the UDP traffic
never leaves the machine, and the local machine only has one instance of the
FDM (therefore single player). Feel free to add or tweak the FDM as you
please. If it is a sound change, I'm sure whoever is maintaining the
multiplayer server will have a method/schedule to grab changes from the CVS
if they so choose.
I still have some research to do on scalability of the proposal. On first
glance, I think (don't know) it will scale just fine. The server is just a
mega FDM crunchin' machine. It won't have any graphics information to
handle, just the FDM(s). My original intent was a system capable of up to
30+ planes with full submodel capability running at once. We'll see what I
run into as I continue to read through the core material of FG.
I agree with you that server lag is a major concern. But I think on single
player mode (with no server to lag) it will not be an issue, and on a
multiplayer server it would yield better results than the current
multiplayer structure.
In your experience, Harald, what has been the approximate ratio of FDM vs
Graphics vs remainder code on CPU time? Has anyone done work on clocking
the various subroutines in FG to determine this? (Perhaps I underestimate
the CPU time required of the FDM?)
Regards,
James
On 5/12/07, Ron Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 11:06 -0500, James Palmer wrote:
> Thanks for the input Harald.
>
> -I'm going more away from Solution #2 and more toward Solution #1.
James,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Solution #1 require the server to
run the FDM therefor preventing anyone but the server owner from
adjusting the FDM at all? Also if the server owner doesn't / won't add
new FDMs we're stuck with using whatever FDMs they feel like adding?
While this may be a good thing from a gaming perspective I believe it
would be a very bad thing from an overall open source/flightgear
perspective. There are several interesting military aircraft available
for FGFS that either aren't GPL-able or not part of the base package for
other reasons.
How will this scale when we have 20+ aircraft flying around each
spawning multiple sub-models/AI aircraft the server is also responsible
for tracking?
The number one rule for any pilot (fighter or otherwise) is:
FLY THE AIRPLANE
If you don't (can't) do that nothing else matters. Offloading the FDM
to another computer subject to server lag is not a good idea.
Thanks,
Ron
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
--
James Palmer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
