On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:13:16 +0200, Pep wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi all, > > > ..ok, so you have no way of assuring people see the same things at > > IVAO. > > Right, though differences are scarce in practice. But even in real > life, you have no way of assuring others see colors the same way you > do (just kiddin ;o) ). > > >> > >> > ..you fly FG in IVAO using Wintendo??? How do these communicate? > >> > >> It would be nice to fly FG in IVAO (this is the whole point of this > >> conversation), whatever platform. I personally prefer Linux, but > >> as FG is multiplatform, then IVAO would turn multiplatform... > > > > ..yeah, but never mind my surprise, the important question > > on my line above, was: "How do these communicate?" > > > > I think I'm missing something from your question. How do who > communicate? FG and IVAO? ..yup, the programs, they must communicate somehow. Your wrote your own code to do this? > > But those you don't see on the list, but who are online on the MP > > servers on a near-constant basis, are the "kids" (of variable age > > range, no doubt) whose idea of social flying is "EMERGENCY LANDING< > > EVERYBODY CLEAR THE RUNWAY!!!!@@@" or "CAN SOMEONE TELL ME HOW TO > > FLY>>??" and/or those that just loop around aimlessly seeking > > FLY>>attention or try to pull off something > > "cool" flying a 787 like it were in an aerobatic display. > > > > Given the former, I agree that this presents no problem working > > with IVAO. How do we screen for the latter? Again I say that there > > would have to be two FG-MP networks; one connected with IVAO and > > one that isn't. Or, close FG-MP to only those who register for > > IVAO and plan to follow its guidelines, leaving the "kids" to play > > solo, or else privately set up their own FG-MP servers. > > I completely agree with that. That's why I kept insisting that no one > should loose their freedom to play in the way more fun for each one. > Someone will prefer messig around, looping, crashing, hitting, > aerobatics, etc. Some other will have more fun executing a full > flight, with its takeoff, departure, enroute, approach, goaround, > diverting, holding or landing procedures, using charts, in a way > exactly identical to reality. And someone could prefer both things, > depending on the day. Then, two (or more actually) separate networks > is best. You don't need to change your flying meetings; moreover: you > shouldn't do it for the sake of joining another network. And IVAO > would accept FG simmers that enjoyed real life procedures without > changing its principles. I don't even think joining networks is > philosophically possible. ..some aren't, agreed, and some combinations _are_ possible, but let's first have IVAO weed out it's litigation traps, e.g. this gem, the last line of §2 in http://www.ivao.aero/rulregs/va-r-r.asp , doesn't quite fly with me, obviously IVAO and its Executive Commitee _is_ subject to copyright law and the GPL, if they do anything mentioned in either of these. > Best, > > Pep. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
