On Wednesday 19 March 2008 20:58, Gijs de Rooy wrote: > Hi all, > > Tonight we've had kind of discussion on the in-game-chat about > the idea to seperate playing and flying in different MP-servers. > > First lets see why we want it: > - Most of the time half of all the pilots online at the server(s) > isn't flying according to the reality. These pilots are testing, > crashing, (trying to) block taxiways etc. Pilots that wanna fly > could ignore these people, but the fact is that more pilots would > cause more and longer/larger lags. > - Pilots, like I've noted in the text above, are ignoring (or > opposing) the instructions given by the Tower Controller. Thats > anyoning for the ATCer and for the other pilots. Pilots following > instructions and aviation rules don't know when a plane is coming > to close, driving on the runway or something like that if they > should react (because if they don't it would cause a crash in > reallife) or not (if the pilots are just "amateurs" that are > crossing runways without clearence etc. the real-pilots don't > need to avoid them because it wont cause a crash in real). > - There are several more reasons, but I think these two are the > most important. > > There are two solutions: > - Fly at other places/airports than KSFO (or other places where > people are messing around). This will reduce the lag, because > you're out of reach for the "amateur" planes. But chat will be > visible (because it's spread around a large area. So this is no > solution for the ATC problems and we don't wanna be "banned" to > other places because our wish to fly real. - Seperated servers is > the best solution I think. We could have a server for realistic > flying and one for "gaming". The realistic-server will be > populated by ATCers and pilots that are (trying to) follow(ing) > the aviation rules etc. The gaming-server is for pilots that > wanna fly without ATC and any rules. Pilots are free to fly, > crash, hijack, block taxiways etc. at this server.Thanks for your > patience to read this text. I hope you agree with me, I like to > hear all your opinions. > > Gijs de Rooy > PH-GYS > www.flightgear.nl.tp
I think this is a valid issue. As a final bit of testing I do some flying on mp, to check for mp specific problems, but doing that under instruction from ATC isn't really viable. While I try to not cause problems for other users I can see that having someone else randomly whizzing about while you're trying to do serious stuff is going to be a little distracting at the very least. At one time there were separate mp systems for users and development (using port 5002 instead of 5000) and I could do my testing using the development mp system and populating it, if necessary, using some of my other systems here at home to run mp drones. The trouble is though, running another mp system needs more resources, not only in server bandwidth but also maintenance etc, so I can understand why it was dropped. I could use a different airport, somewhere away from KSFO, and populate that area with a few mp drones, but as well as adding an extra three or four aircraft to the current mp system, instead of just one, I'd not be able to test the effects of the KSFO scenery, which is a big factor just in itself. Dunno - no solutions here:( LeeE ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
