Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
On Monday, 24. March 2008, George Patterson wrote: > However, if someone would like to see what has been done, please drop > me a private email. > Is there a Perl programmer in the audience? Yep, there is ;) If you want me to do some review or have some area where you could need some help, just drop me a note. Regards, Stefan - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 11:37 AM, George Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <--Text snipped--> > > > Hi Anders and All, > > Yes, that could be done very simply at the IP data level with iptables. > > > 1. Log into the web server which would adjust the iptables rules to > allow the authenticated user to log in. > - This could be either direct or using XML-RPL or SOAP to ask a > remote server to do the work. > 2. Server adds an iptable LOG rule to detect that the user is still > connected (I'll come back to this in a bit). An ALLOW rule will also > need to be added to actually allow the connections. > 3. User connects to the RA server as per normally done today. Protocol > does not need to change. > 4. If the player hasn't been seen for a period of time (5 minutes??), > then drop the LOG and ALLOW rule from iptables. Perhaps the web server > needs to be told that the user has logged out. > > I think that would work. Unfortunately I don't have access to another > computer to develop this. But should be easy enough. Personally I'd > create a customer chain to put these rules in as it will allow easy > separation of your firewall rules (if required) from the temporary > rules created by this system. > > > Have fun for whoever does this. > > > George > I have written a quick framework which I believe should work with minimal changes. One To Do that i can't (Lacking a machine to test from) - Written in CGI Perl (criteria: Installed on my Asus eeePC). Modules required are minimal if not part of the core. - Mostly centres around one script which authenticates the user setting a browser cookie when doing so. - Web server: lightttpd 1.4.x as it is an easy install onto the eeePC (default reporsitiory) The authentication details for the "database" has been separated to allow whatever you wish to be "dropped" into place. TODO - Write code for manipulating the iptableas rules - Currently there is not tainted data checking as I'm still working through that. I'd like to tidy up the code somewhat before putting it out to the public arena, under the GPL license. However, if someone would like to see what has been done, please drop me a private email. Is there a Perl programmer in the audience? Regards George - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Anders Gidenstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Gijs de Rooy wrote: > > > What is needed to set up a MP-server? > > If we know what we need we could search for it. > > Hi, > > Something along these lines: A linux box with a good network connection. > And the server software FGMS http://fgms.sourceforge.net/ > > FGMS can probably be built and run on most Unix like systems (but it might > be more or less painful.. :) > > mpserver06, which I run, is a very old Sun workstation running Solaris. It > is more than powerful enough for the network connection it has, but to > collect the build dependencies is a pain. (I have not managed to build a > newer FGMS than last summer's, but at this time that is still fine.) > > There is currently no access control what so ever in FGMS but access > control can be implemented separately, e.g. using packet filtering and > some kind of web based session login that can update the filter rules. > I suspect someone reasonably at home with web services can cobble together > something simple but working for a Linux based host in a fairly short > time. > > Hi Anders and All, Yes, that could be done very simply at the IP data level with iptables. 1. Log into the web server which would adjust the iptables rules to allow the authenticated user to log in. - This could be either direct or using XML-RPL or SOAP to ask a remote server to do the work. 2. Server adds an iptable LOG rule to detect that the user is still connected (I'll come back to this in a bit). An ALLOW rule will also need to be added to actually allow the connections. 3. User connects to the RA server as per normally done today. Protocol does not need to change. 4. If the player hasn't been seen for a period of time (5 minutes??), then drop the LOG and ALLOW rule from iptables. Perhaps the web server needs to be told that the user has logged out. I think that would work. Unfortunately I don't have access to another computer to develop this. But should be easy enough. Personally I'd create a customer chanin to put these rules in as it will allow easy separation of your firewall rules (if required) from the temporary rules created by this system. Have fun for whoever does this. George - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
On Thursday 20 March 2008 15:36, Gijs de Rooy wrote: > Hello, > > Ofcourse we need to keep the current "free-flying" servers open > for all kind of pilots.The special real-aviation (RA) server may > be maintaned/controlled by some moderators like Curt proposed. If > we have password acces theres the possibility to do some kind of > "test" before you may enter the server? And when someone is not > using the RA-server as it's used to be he/she could be banned for > some time. There are always the open servers left to fly on if > you're not longer welcome on the RA-server. But I don't think > this will happens often. The playing-pilots aren't doing anything > wrong, there's just no seperation in the servers, so they've no > place to do what they want. > > I know some people that really like FlightGear, but because the > missing of a RA-server they don't wanna use FlightGear. It's one > step further to a reallife based FlightSimulator, like we want. > > What is needed to set up a MP-server? > If we know what we need we could search for it. > > Thanks, > Gijs I think a dedicated and access-controlled RA mp server, if people are prepared to make the resources available, is probably the best solution and it would mean that the RA fliers get a reduced traffic load on their system, which can't be a bad thing:) Testers could then continue using the default mp system where a high traffic load is desirable (if you're testing something there's no point in giving it an easy time) A quick and dirty way of controlling access to a RA server could be to run it on an unannounced port for each session. To join a session you'd have to e-mail whoever is doing ATC to obtain the port number. Of course, if someone was really desperate to annoy serious fliers they could port scan the server, but it would stop casual mp fliers and testers from unintentionally interfering with serious fliers. LeeE - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Gijs de Rooy wrote: > Hello, > > Ofcourse we need to keep the current "free-flying" servers open for all kind > of pilots.The special real-aviation (RA) server may be maintaned/controlled > by some moderators like Curt proposed. If we have password acces theres the > possibility to do some kind of "test" before you may enter the server? And > when someone is not using the RA-server as it's used to be he/she could be > banned for some time. There are always the open servers left to fly on if > you're not longer welcome on the RA-server. But I don't think this will > happens often. The playing-pilots aren't doing anything wrong, there's just > no seperation in the servers, so they've no place to do what they want. > > I know some people that really like FlightGear, but because the missing of a > RA-server they don't wanna use FlightGear. It's one step further to a > reallife based FlightSimulator, like we want. > > What is needed to set up a MP-server? Also, where can one download MP-server sources from? As I mentioned before, we have a server in Germany hanging on 100 mbit with spare resources where we could host an MP-server. If setting up a second network for professional users means we need more servers, just let me know. Tibor Palinkas Allied-Visions GmbH - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Anders Gidenstam wrote: > There is currently no access control what so ever in FGMS but access > control can be implemented separately, e.g. using packet filtering and > some kind of web based session login that can update the filter rules. > I suspect someone reasonably at home with web services can cobble together > something simple but working for a Linux based host in a fairly short > time. An even simpler alternative might be to extend FGMS to use a white-list of accepted IPs (better) or callsigns and let the web login stuff update the white-list. A quite ugly but simple idea is to have FGMS read the list every x seconds. Cheers, Anders -- --- Anders Gidenstam mail: anders(at)gidenstam.org WWW: http://www.gidenstam.org/FlightGear/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Gijs de Rooy wrote: > What is needed to set up a MP-server? > If we know what we need we could search for it. Hi, Something along these lines: A linux box with a good network connection. And the server software FGMS http://fgms.sourceforge.net/ FGMS can probably be built and run on most Unix like systems (but it might be more or less painful.. :) mpserver06, which I run, is a very old Sun workstation running Solaris. It is more than powerful enough for the network connection it has, but to collect the build dependencies is a pain. (I have not managed to build a newer FGMS than last summer's, but at this time that is still fine.) There is currently no access control what so ever in FGMS but access control can be implemented separately, e.g. using packet filtering and some kind of web based session login that can update the filter rules. I suspect someone reasonably at home with web services can cobble together something simple but working for a Linux based host in a fairly short time. Cheers, Anders -- --- Anders Gidenstam mail: anders(at)gidenstam.org WWW: http://www.gidenstam.org/FlightGear/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
Hello, Ofcourse we need to keep the current "free-flying" servers open for all kind of pilots.The special real-aviation (RA) server may be maintaned/controlled by some moderators like Curt proposed. If we have password acces theres the possibility to do some kind of "test" before you may enter the server? And when someone is not using the RA-server as it's used to be he/she could be banned for some time. There are always the open servers left to fly on if you're not longer welcome on the RA-server. But I don't think this will happens often. The playing-pilots aren't doing anything wrong, there's just no seperation in the servers, so they've no place to do what they want. I know some people that really like FlightGear, but because the missing of a RA-server they don't wanna use FlightGear. It's one step further to a reallife based FlightSimulator, like we want. What is needed to set up a MP-server? If we know what we need we could search for it. Thanks, Gijs _ Probeer Live Search: de zoekmachine van de makers van MSN! http://www.live.com/?searchOnly=true- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Gijs de Rooy wrote: > Tonight we've had kind of discussion on the in-game-chat about > the idea to seperate playing and flying in different MP-servers. > I'm a little late here, but just wanted to weigh in that I think this a pretty good idea ... there's no harm in trying it out. In a perfectly free world, there'd be no reason I can think of why anyone couldn't start their own separate MP server if they wanted to. As you point out, clearly the default MP world is a giant free for all. I think the default advertised MP server(s) will and should be like that. This is the playground for all those that are trying FlightGear for the first time, or trying a new plane for the first time, or testing something, or whatever. A "serious" MP server for those that want to do their best to follow real aviation procedures and rules makes a lot of sense ... these procedures and real world rules would need to be honored as best as possible. We still need to allow for honest mistakes since I believe that most people involved in this project are not licensed full scale pilots, and real lives are not at stake if a mistake is made. We would need to keep that all in proper perspective. I'm also involved in building FAA certified simulators for real pilot training. So having a "super serious" MP server where mistakes are treated very harshly might be a fun thing to setup someday as well. I can think of several other situations where a private or semi-private server would be useful. One question this may eventually lead to, is do we want to add some simple password authentication scheme in our MP protocol so that MP server admins can control who participates on their server? It's nice to live in a world where everyone chooses to act nice, but as FG grows and as our MP usage grows, some sort of authentication scheme might become an unfortunate necessity to prevent willful abuse. So to summarize: We definitely want to maintain a default MP system that is open and free for all to join. But if someone wants to setup a specialized MP server for a special purpose, I don't think that even needs to be discussed. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
Am Donnerstag 20 März 2008 14:29 schrieb Anders Gidenstam: > We still have the port 5002 network up, though with less mpservers than > the port 5000 one. Currently mpserver02 and mpserver06 seems to be the > only ones on the 5002 network. mpserver01 is probably also there but it's > port 5002 fgms seems unresponsive. mpserver01:5002 is up and running. It's just... broken. While introducing new classes and testing new stuff I also introduced new bugs ;) - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, LeeE wrote: > 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. Hi, One observation is that maybe you don't have to do your tests at KSFO :) I often use my local airport ESGP or KNUQ for testing (but admittedly this is mostly because the heavy traffic at KSFO tends to slow my box to a crawl). > 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. We still have the port 5002 network up, though with less mpservers than the port 5000 one. Currently mpserver02 and mpserver06 seems to be the only ones on the 5002 network. mpserver01 is probably also there but it's port 5002 fgms seems unresponsive. > 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. Remember, MP data isn't forwarded to clients out of sight (well, 50nm out of sight to be precise), so moving to a less populated area saves server bandwidth (your data isn't forwarded to the other clients and theirs isn't forwarded to you). Cheers, Anders -- --- Anders Gidenstam mail: anders(at)gidenstam.org WWW: http://www.gidenstam.org/FlightGear/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
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/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
--- 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. Hi Gijs, A very interesting point, and I am pleasantly surprised that you were able to use the MP chat facility for the discussion, if only because I didn't think it was robust enough :) Personally, I feel that one of the major strengths of the FG MP implementation has been the fact that everyone on MP is in the single environment/airspace. Forcing people to choose between different servers would lose some of this, as well as making things more challenging to configure. Additionally I think it might segment what is currently quite a cohesive online community. I haven't used MSFS for a couple of years, but I get the impression that there are separate server environments there. Perhaps someone with experience of this might care to comment? For me personally, part of the fun of MP is that there are beginners there who are learning. If we split off a "serious" server port, I think this will discourage people from trying to learn how ATC etc. works. You mentioned the alternative of going to a different airport. I think this is possibly the easiest way to separate the "players" from the "simulators". We now have a number of detailed airports, so there is little need to hang around KSFO. However, there is a general issue that the current approach only allows one to switch off all aircraft or MP-chat. In the long term, this isn't really sustainable, as a small number of obnoxious people could make the environment un-bearable. One option I have though off would be to add a function to ignore specific call-signs, so they don't appear and their messages are ignored. Such a function could also be used to ignore those not "playing by the rules", Till Busch has been working on a very nice table which shows all the MP aircraft in range, their aircraft type, heading and distance. I think would be fairly straightforward to enhance this with a check-box which would toggle the display of specific aircraft. People could then choose to ignore/display new aircraft, and save off a list of ignored/displayed aircraft. I think this would achieve what you want without splitting the MP servers completely. Of course, nothing is stopping anyone from setting up their own MP server and only inviting their serious friends :) Gijs - you might want to put this to the -user list as well, as I think this is as much an issue for users and developers. -Stuart ___ Rise to the challenge for Sport Relief with Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
Hi, my first thought was: "Why? Should not _all_ fly together and not separated?". Having thought about the proposal for some time, I changed my opinion and like the idea. I personally appreciate it a lot when there is a player online taking over ATC, because I like the realism and do not feel constrained by "obeying" to ATC's commands - quite the contrary! If possible, I would even go a step further and aim at implementation of a realistic crash/demolition model for the realistic server. I read about a "follow-me car" in another thread and perhaps creating such a car for flightgear could result in other realistic airport vehicles (fire trucks, busses, supply trucks...) interacting with the aircrafts/pilots. Tobias Ramforth begin:vcard fn:Tobias Ramforth n:Ramforth;Tobias email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Seperated MP-servers
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 _ Jouw nieuws en entertainment, vind je op MSN.nl! http://nl.msn.com/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
