Re: [Flightgear-devel] feature request: MultiPlayer's Callsigns inViewport
On Saturday, 23 July 2005 20:55, Jon Stockill wrote: > Paul Surgeon wrote: > > That's the beauty of an app like TeamSpeak. > > You just download it, install it and it works. > > No mess, no fuss, no sleepless nights trying to code or debug something. > > :) > > What about the server? Looking at the site it seems that you need a > license to run it. I'd investigate more, but the link to the FAQ from > the page discussing the costs doesn't go anywhere. > > Jon I didn't realise the server side was so "sticky". :( The licenses are free for non-profit organisations as long as you don't exceed 100 slots for all instances of Teamspeak running on a server. If you do then you get billed $0.14 per slot. Well that's what I can make of it. TS is starting to look less and less attractive. Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] feature request: MultiPlayer's Callsigns inViewport
Paul Surgeon wrote: That's the beauty of an app like TeamSpeak. You just download it, install it and it works. No mess, no fuss, no sleepless nights trying to code or debug something. :) What about the server? Looking at the site it seems that you need a license to run it. I'd investigate more, but the link to the FAQ from the page discussing the costs doesn't go anywhere. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] feature request: MultiPlayer's Callsigns inViewport
On Saturday, 23 July 2005 19:31, Oliver C. wrote: > On Saturday 23 July 2005 18:03, Paul Surgeon wrote: > > What a pity as I don't know of any good replacements and writing VOIP > > software is not a trivial task. > > I do know a replacement for Teamspeak that is open source and under > the LGPL license. > > It is this one, we could use it: > > http://www.hawksoft.com/hawkvoice/ > > > Best Regards, > Oliver C. Well I wouldn't regard it as a replacement. From what I've read it's just a voice compression library - you have to supply your own playback and voice capture functionality. That's the beauty of an app like TeamSpeak. You just download it, install it and it works. No mess, no fuss, no sleepless nights trying to code or debug something. :) Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] feature request: MultiPlayer's Callsigns inViewport
On July 23, 2005 12:03 pm, Paul Surgeon wrote: > What a pity as I don't know of any good replacements and writing VOIP > software is not a trivial task. Doing an apt-cache search voip get me kphone and libopenh323. Ampere ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] feature request: MultiPlayer's Callsigns inViewport
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Paul Surgeon schrieb: > What a pity as I don't know of any good replacements and writing VOIP > software > is not a trivial task. Well, can't we "just" take the VoIP functionality e.g. from KPhone and set up our own SIP server? It "should" be easy... CU, Chris -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) iD8DBQFC4oUylhWtxOxWNFcRAvDbAJ9ab1t56roF4BHxv6unogj715TUVACgr8m6 DIFSjsNKAk7d9c4mYpY8oLY= =A/bR -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] feature request: MultiPlayer's Callsigns inViewport
On Saturday 23 July 2005 18:03, Paul Surgeon wrote: > > What a pity as I don't know of any good replacements and writing VOIP > software is not a trivial task. I do know a replacement for Teamspeak that is open source and under the LGPL license. It is this one, we could use it: http://www.hawksoft.com/hawkvoice/ Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] feature request: MultiPlayer's Callsigns inViewport
There are facilities available to use REAL (ATC) controllers on line. I've not done it myself, but both the X-plane and PS-1 sims (see http://744.hoppie.nl/forum.cgi) are doing this. jj - Original Message - > > pilots who fly by schedule under the control of some real ATC. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] feature request: MultiPlayer's Callsigns inViewport
Paul Surgeon wrote: What a pity as I don't know of any good replacements and writing VOIP software is not a trivial task. So the only way it could work is if the creators of TeamSpeak released a GPL interface to their software? I guess text will just have to suffice. http://www.voip-info.org covers practically everything out there. Codecs, transports, servers. I'm sure there are alternatives to teamspeak, and failing that, there are tools to build something. The speex codec should certainly be able to provide voice comms while using a sensible amount of bandwidth. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] feature request: MultiPlayer's Callsigns inViewport
Paul Surgeon wrote: > What a pity as I don't know of any good replacements and writing > VOIP software is not a trivial task. It's not so bad, really. And there certainly is open source voice communications software out there, albeit aimed more at enterprise applications than gamers. If the outcome of not being able to use TeamSpeak is a free game chat system, then we all win. > So the only way it could work is if the creators of TeamSpeak released a GPL > interface to their software? They could publish a well-specified protocol that we then implement to control a local client, I suppose. Protocol boundaries are a good indication of the end of a "derivative work" -- one doesn't usually worry about the licensing issues of using a GPL web browser to connect to a commercial web server. And it doesn't have to be GPL, just a GPL-compatible license. This generally means any "loose" non-copyleft license, a-la MIT or BSD. Other copyleft schemes (copyleft is the trick whereby you licence derivative works only if they are distributed under the same license) tend to interfere with each other. Basically, if they (TeamSpeak) want to make this work, they could do it pretty easily. They may be amenable to suggestions, if someone wants to talk to them. They are clearly linux-friendly if not completely free-software-friendly, at least. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] feature request: MultiPlayer's Callsigns inViewport
On Saturday, 23 July 2005 17:34, Andy Ross wrote: > Writing code that runs in the fgfs binary to interface to an API > is generally considered to be making a derivative work, for > fairly obvious reasons. > > ...whereas the simple act of running a program is not the > creation of a derivative work. > > I know it's frustrating, but unfortunately the "you can use this > software for free" culture isn't really compatible with the GNU > notion of free software, or with the open source definition. > This is a pretty fundamental thing, and it's not likely to be > fixed any time soon. Most of us, I suspect, simply aren't > interested in hooking someone else's proprietary stuff into > FlightGear. > > Andy What a pity as I don't know of any good replacements and writing VOIP software is not a trivial task. So the only way it could work is if the creators of TeamSpeak released a GPL interface to their software? I guess text will just have to suffice. Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] feature request: MultiPlayer's Callsigns inViewport
Paul Surgeon wrote: > TeamSpeak doesn't have to be part of the FG package. > It's a separate program that has an API you can interface to. Writing code that runs in the fgfs binary to interface to an API is generally considered to be making a derivative work, for fairly obvious reasons. > People run FlightGear on MS operating systems which are not GPL either so I > don't see what the issue is. ...whereas the simple act of running a program is not the creation of a derivative work. I know it's frustrating, but unfortunately the "you can use this software for free" culture isn't really compatible with the GNU notion of free software, or with the open source definition. This is a pretty fundamental thing, and it's not likely to be fixed any time soon. Most of us, I suspect, simply aren't interested in hooking someone else's proprietary stuff into FlightGear. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] feature request: MultiPlayer's Callsigns inViewport
On Saturday, 23 July 2005 16:08, Vivian Meazza wrote: > This has already been discussed. Teamspeak in not GPL'd. I think the > licensing arrangements would give us problems. That would be a pity, > because on the face of it, it's pretty much what we want. Certainly it's > the right way to go though. > > Vivian TeamSpeak doesn't have to be part of the FG package. It's a separate program that has an API you can interface to. People run FlightGear on MS operating systems which are not GPL either so I don't see what the issue is. Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] feature request: MultiPlayer's Callsigns inViewport
Paul Surgeon > > On Saturday, 23 July 2005 14:04, Paul Kahler wrote: > > All this multiplayer "chat" stuff has me thinking "game". It would > > probably be more in line with simulation if chatting took place on a > > simulated radio. You'd not only have to be close enough to someone, but > > you'd have to be on the same frequency in order to talk to them. The > > idea of having little on-screen identifiers might be OK as long as it > > can be turned off. I really like that FGFS focuses on simulation and not > > game play. > > > > If you want to be highly realistic, mutiplayer voice chat with proper > > radio frequencies would be ideal. Bandwidth might be a problem for large > > groups, but small ones should be no problem. Of course it's much more > > complicated too ;-) > > > > I was going to comment on this earlier but decided not too since I may > step on > someone's toes. However since we are now on the topic ... :) > > The FS2004/IVAO network have voice comms working quite nicely. > If you tune your radio in FS2004 to an active frequency (within range) > TeamSpeak automatically connects to the server the frequency is hosted on > and > joins the channel. > This happens in the background and is totally seamless. > All you do is, tune to an ATC frequency and use the PTT key to make radio > contact. Just like one would in real life. > > TeamSpeak doesn't use huge amounts of bandwidth and on the client side > will > happily run on a 56K dialup with multiplayer running. > > Chat windows are fine for development purposes but are totally evil and > 1980's > technology when it comes to ATC. :P > In the early days of SATCO (pre VATSIM, IVAO) it was all text and it was a > major pain to fly and try to type at the same time. Even shortcut keys > used > to build text messages were a pain. > Getting a late landing clearance due to another aircraft clearing the > active > runway invariably meant an aerobatics display on short finals while trying > to > type a reply and configure for landing. > > One doesn't have to jump in the deep end by trying to implement all the > features in one go. > Someone can simply host a TeamSpeak server and create a KSFO_TWR channel > which > the pilots can join. > Then when things get more busy we can add KSFO_APP, KSFO_CTR, UNICOM, etc. > Getting TeamSpeak to switch servers and channels by tuning the radios can > come > at a later stage. > This has already been discussed. Teamspeak in not GPL'd. I think the licensing arrangements would give us problems. That would be a pity, because on the face of it, it's pretty much what we want. Certainly it's the right way to go though. Vivian ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
