Re: [Flightgear-devel] Interest in adding dogfighting capability
James Palmer wrote: > I am seriously interested in adding dogfighting capability to FG. > > I've been reading through the source for the past couple of days. (I've only just stumbled > upon FG.) > > As I see it, the following changes would need to be implemented to have a rudimentary dogfight. > 1- add missiles to submodels > 2- have submodels added to the multiplayer protocol so that players can see other AI entities. > 3- add collision detection (airplane to airplane and airplane to AI) > Missiles - > The approach I planned involves creating a new submodel called "missile." I have two options on how to proceed. > a- create a missile object based on the AIballistic submodel but with an added "thrust" parameter. > b- create a missile object based on the AIAircraft model. > I think the AIAircraft model will be more useful as a base, so that future expansion can be added more easily (i.e. seeking methods etc) > Multiplayer - >I still have a lot of reading to do in this area. Any suggestions for allowing submodel information to be sent to the server and other players are greatly > appreciated. > Collision Detection - >For a first run, I planned on using the same "_crashed" variable in the YASim model. Just calling a setCrashed when a player comes within contact distance >of another player or AI model. >I haven't read through all of the source code yet, so any critiques or suggestions are welcome. I recently added the capability of AIObjects to use submodels, so some of what you want to do is already present. If the trigger property is set over the net, the AIObject, in this case an MP aircraft, should release a submodel. Unfortunately, all objects in the environment using the same 3d model will do likewise. So if you are using a F16, and your target is an F16, both will fire a missile as it currently stands. There are small but significant lags on the network, so the missile you fire and see is not in the same position as another player will see. This shouldn't matter too much for homing missiles, but I think would preclude a realistic extension into guns. A modification of AIAircraft is probably the way to go. Simple proximity is probably not enough to calculate a hit - you should at least think about simulating the fuse characteristics, and consider the geometry of the intercept. I imagine you would need to add some randomness to simulate the probabilities of success. And finally, and THIS IS IMPORTANT. We don't want some idiot over KSFO shooting down other players who are quietly practicing touch and goes, so this facility, if you provide it, MUST be selectable by other players. Vivian -- 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Data change log for next release
Hi Stuart, I think the gliding bit could be made clearer - no point in being shy about our new features ;-) > Improved gliding, with towing (both on the ground and by MP aircraft) I think I would say with winch launching and aerotowing (by either AI or MP pilots). The other thing I didn't notice mention of is the superb improvement in ground type representation in YASim which finally gives us water (with waves/swell) for seaplane operations and of course correct behaviour on other surfaces for other types of aircraft. I'm sure there will be a few others too, but your list seems to be a pretty good start... Cheers, AJ - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Simgear updates for next release
--- Melchior FRANZ wrote: > Maybe the changelog should be on the wiki for fixes/extensions? An excellent use of the wiki - done. I've merged the data and simgear logs together here along with the feedback I've seen so far: http://wiki.flightgear.org/flightgear_wiki/index.php?title=Changes_since_0.9.10 Please feel free to make additive changes. In particular if I've not mentioned a major change to your favourite aircraft. -Stuart ___ Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free account today http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/winter07.html - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Data change log for next release
--- AJ MacLeod wrote: > Hi Stuart, > > I think the gliding bit could be made clearer - no point in being shy > about > our new features ;-) > > > Improved gliding, with towing (both on the ground and by MP aircraft) > > I think I would say > > with winch launching and aerotowing (by either AI or MP pilots). I've updated the wiki appropriately. > The other thing I didn't notice mention of is the superb improvement in > ground > type representation in YASim which finally gives us water (with > waves/swell) > for seaplane operations and of course correct behaviour on other > surfaces for > other types of aircraft. I'm sure John W. will pick this up when he goes through the flightgear source changes. -Stuart ___ Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/ - 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
[Flightgear-devel] A-10 splash screen update
Hi, Update for the A-10: New splash screen image. Available at: http://croo.murgl.org/fgfs/A-10/A-10-splash.rgb Thanks for commiting, Alexis - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Flightgear-users] Any new version in sight?
Hello Curt, Only one question: Which FG do you intend to implement, FG with OSG libraries or FG with Plib libraries only ? You know some of us are getting trouble with the OSG version. Regards -- Gérard - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] A-10 splash screen update
alexis bory wrote: > Update for the A-10: New splash screen image. Done. While you're at it and if you have some spare cycles, you could have a closer look at the model itself. I see several messages of this type (FlightGear/OSG): osgDB ac3d reader: detected surface with less than 3 vertices! Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- - 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
[Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
I have a better idea on what is involved now for adding dogfighting to FG.
Thanks to all who have given me input,.. Keep it coming.
After talking with alot of you, here are the additional and more finely
tuned ideas that I have.
Dogfight On/Off Option: (Thanks to Vivian)
-I will include an option for turning off dogfighting and still allowing
multi player. As someone pointed out we don't want some kid shooting down
everyone over San Fransisco while everyone else is doing serious flying.
The option will not turn off AI-Aircraft, as you still want to see other
players (otherwise you'd play single player on the local machine), it will
just ignore all submodel information from the server ( i.e. guns and
missiles). This option should probably be turned Off by default.
Server Coordination:
Some discussion on how to coordinate AI-Ballistic and AI-missile (yet to be
created) with players was had yesterday.
Basic Problem: Jet A is travelling at mach 2 and he has a slow Internet
connection (200ms latency). Jet B is approaching him from a direct right
angle (i.e. Jet A will exactly cross Jet B's gun sight very shortly) When
Jet A's pilot realizes that he is about to be toast, he makes a hard turn,
but at mach 2 he will travel approximately 450 feet before his slow packet
reaches the server. This is a very simplified example, but it gets the
point across. I need to figure out the best way to minimize the effects of
Jet A's latency and determine the best method of position coordination
between players.
Suggested Solution #1 - DFMP is server driven and server coordinated:
The dogfighting MP (DFMP) should be server driven (thanks to Lethe for the
insight into this direction) and server coordinated. Clients should send
user input information to the server and let the server calculate where the
player is on the earth and inform the player of it. The server would also
be responsible for determining whether a collision has occured. This is the
approach taken by many of todays MP Internet games.
Changes for this approach include :
1-an overhaul of the MP protocol. Currently users send a UDP message on
their position to the server which then updates the other players
AI-Aircraft models (I think I understand this correctly,.. if not someone
please chime in). Clients would now have to send user input information to
the server. The server would have to model the FDM of the craft they are
using, determine its new position and then update the client and other DFMP
players on the clients new location. These calculations and updates would
happen for every DFMP there is on the server.
2 - a change in the client side of MP protocol to send only user input, and
to accept new positions from the server that is driving.
3 - the server would need additional collision detection ("hit-box" relative
to the size of the craft flown)
Suggested Solution #2 - DFMP is client driven and server coordinated:
The DFMP should be client driven and server coordinated. Clients would be
responsible for calculating their own FDM and position on the earth. Each
client would send its position information to the server, which would
maintain a list of aircraft and AI positions. The server would only be
responsible for passing position information to all players and determining
whether a collision has occurred. To further reduce the effects of latency,
vector extrapolation may be used to determine a player's position when no
new information packet has arrived.
Changes for this approach include :
1- Adding AI objects to the MP protocol so that gun and missile information
can be transferred.
2 - the server would need additional collision detection ("hit-box" relative
to the size of the craft flown)
Cutting down the information needed for DFMP
I've been trying to think of some methods to cut down the network traffic
required, by allowing the client to do some of the heavy lifting. Here are
some ideas I have.
- Ballistic Objects would be initiated but not updated by sender (i.e.
bullet from a gun). Jet A shoots a bullet at Jet B. Jet A sends a BO
initiation packet to the server. It has all of the property information
that is normally associated with it (initial position, speed, weight etc).
Server sends a copy of the BO packet to Jet B. Jet B receives the BO
packet and creates his own AI-ballistic object with the same properties.
Jet B will now keep track of the BO for his own visual purposes only. The
server will also create a BO to track for position information ( i.e.
collision detection). Jet B will not determine if he is hit, the server
will tell him, but Jet B will create his own visual for the bullet. This
can further be enhanced by modifying the BO to have a "time created"
property describing the UTC time it was created. This will allow Jet B and
the server to adjust the BO for the latency in the network and initiate it
in the correct position. (initial position plus distance traveled in packet
latency period)
- A similar ap
Re: [Flightgear-devel] A-10 splash screen update
Martin Spott a e'crit : > alexis bory wrote: > > > Update for the A-10: New splash screen image. > > Done. While you're at it and if you have some spare cycles, you could > have a closer look at the model itself. I see several messages of > this type (FlightGear/OSG): > > osgDB ac3d reader: detected surface with less than 3 vertices! > > > Cheers, Martin. It's on the way, I already found the bad polys, it will be commited in the next update (soon!) Alexis - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Flightgear-users] Any new version in sight?
On 5/10/07, gh.robin wrote: Which FG do you intend to implement, FG with OSG libraries or FG with Plib libraries only ? You know some of us are getting trouble with the OSG version. Right, the OSG branch still has some issues so any release done in the near term will have to be based on plib. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson - University of Minnesota - FlightGear Project http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ http://www.flightgear.org Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] LANDING LIGHTS
Simulador wrote: >Hi Stewart, > >I am sorry for the delay, I posted this email 2 weeks ago and I thought >I had answered you. > >I am working on a Full Flight Simulator that was manufactured in 1976, >it is a Boeing 707-341. > >The HOST computer was a R2000, it was a 24 bit machine with 64 K words >of memory. We did replace the R2000 computer for a LINUX based PC with a >emulator. > >The Visual System is a NOVOVEW 2500, it was developed by Evans and >Sutherland, and the computer is a Texas Instrument TI980 computer ( 16 >bit x 16 K words). > >I was testing FLIGHT GEAR as a VISUAL SYSTEM replacement for this >simulator, but I should have control over the exterior AIRCRAFT LIGHTS. > >Is there any plans to develop this functionality to Flight Gear on a >short term? > >Please take a look at http://707simulator.multiply.com > >Regards, > >Carlos > >Stewart Andreason wrote: > > > I can not talk for the others but I won't work on that for the plib version (ie on a short term). The osg implementation is done in a few hours with multutexturing with a cube map and a two pass rendering. And then a preliminary work is to spatialize the scene graph so that the second render pass is only done around the spot light to minimize the hit on fps. Harald. - 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
[Flightgear-devel] Radar improvement
Hello everybody, Their is a radar improvement, which has been developed recently by Vivian. That improvement is working perfectly. Many thanks to Vivian. That update has not been released into CVS. Is their any reason ? Regards -- Gérard - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
I recall reading a document some time ago about re-structuring FG into a
more robust client / server architecture:
http://wiki.flightgear.org/flightgear_wiki/images/1/1e/New_FG_architecture.p
df
You might want to give that a read. it's fairly similar to your "Suggested
Solution #1" I think. That solution would also be the best for
cheating-prevention (not like it means much though when the client
purposefully exposes interfaces for writing UAVs or *cough* aim-bots, haha).
But at least it would preclude a WWI bi-plane from doing Mach 8.
Lorne
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James
Palmer
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:58 AM
To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
I have a better idea on what is involved now for adding dogfighting to FG.
Thanks to all who have given me input,.. Keep it coming.
After talking with alot of you, here are the additional and more finely
tuned ideas that I have.
Dogfight On/Off Option: (Thanks to Vivian)
-I will include an option for turning off dogfighting and still allowing
multi player. As someone pointed out we don't want some kid shooting down
everyone over San Fransisco while everyone else is doing serious flying.
The option will not turn off AI-Aircraft, as you still want to see other
players (otherwise you'd play single player on the local machine), it will
just ignore all submodel information from the server ( i.e. guns and
missiles). This option should probably be turned Off by default.
Server Coordination:
Some discussion on how to coordinate AI-Ballistic and AI-missile (yet to be
created) with players was had yesterday.
Basic Problem: Jet A is travelling at mach 2 and he has a slow Internet
connection (200ms latency). Jet B is approaching him from a direct right
angle (i.e. Jet A will exactly cross Jet B's gun sight very shortly) When
Jet A's pilot realizes that he is about to be toast, he makes a hard turn,
but at mach 2 he will travel approximately 450 feet before his slow packet
reaches the server. This is a very simplified example, but it gets the
point across. I need to figure out the best way to minimize the effects of
Jet A's latency and determine the best method of position coordination
between players.
Suggested Solution #1 - DFMP is server driven and server coordinated:
The dogfighting MP (DFMP) should be server driven (thanks to Lethe for the
insight into this direction) and server coordinated. Clients should send
user input information to the server and let the server calculate where the
player is on the earth and inform the player of it. The server would also
be responsible for determining whether a collision has occured. This is the
approach taken by many of todays MP Internet games.
Changes for this approach include :
1-an overhaul of the MP protocol. Currently users send a UDP message on
their position to the server which then updates the other players
AI-Aircraft models (I think I understand this correctly,.. if not someone
please chime in). Clients would now have to send user input information to
the server. The server would have to model the FDM of the craft they are
using, determine its new position and then update the client and other DFMP
players on the clients new location. These calculations and updates would
happen for every DFMP there is on the server.
2 - a change in the client side of MP protocol to send only user input, and
to accept new positions from the server that is driving.
3 - the server would need additional collision detection ("hit-box" relative
to the size of the craft flown)
Suggested Solution #2 - DFMP is client driven and server coordinated:
The DFMP should be client driven and server coordinated. Clients would be
responsible for calculating their own FDM and position on the earth. Each
client would send its position information to the server, which would
maintain a list of aircraft and AI positions. The server would only be
responsible for passing position information to all players and determining
whether a collision has occurred. To further reduce the effects of latency,
vector extrapolation may be used to determine a player's position when no
new information packet has arrived.
Changes for this approach include :
1- Adding AI objects to the MP protocol so that gun and missile information
can be transferred.
2 - the server would need additional collision detection ("hit-box" relative
to the size of the craft flown)
Cutting down the information needed for DFMP
I've been trying to think of some methods to cut down the network traffic
required, by allowing the client to do some of the heavy lifting. Here are
some ideas I have.
- Ballistic Objects would be initiated but not updated by sender (i.e.
bullet from a gun). Jet A shoots a bullet at Jet B. Jet A sends a BO
initiation packet to the server. It has all of the property information
that is normally associated with it
[Flightgear-devel] More A-10 updates
Hi, Clean some more 3D models, remove *almost all remaining* unnecessary transparency on RGB files. (Still more A-10 patches to follow). The modified files are here: http://croo.murgl.org/fgfs/A-10/A-10-modified-files-20070510.tgz Thanks, Alexis - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Radar improvement
"gh.robin" wrote: > Their is a radar improvement, which has been developed recently by Vivian. [...] > That update has not been released into CVS. Any pointer ? Why don't you simply post a follow-up to his announcement, so people don't have to start searching, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Latest OT/OSG/SG/FG unusable
On Thursday 10 May 2007 00:23:01 gh.robin wrote: > On Mon 7 May 2007 17:05, Nick Warne wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > There seems to be an issue, reported by a few in IRC. > > > > Latest build from SVN/CVS makes FG unusable. Frame rates are (for me) at > > least 60% worse. > > > > E.g. pc7 at FHAW - before 43 - today after updates, 18. > > > > Lightning at KSFO - before 19 - today after updates 6 (unusable). > > > > Nick > > That issue remark look like an other previous topic "Frame rates". > > As far i could understand in IRC , that problem could be solved when using > an older OSG cvs version. > I have tried to find which OSG cvs version could suit to our request. > I did not find any. > > Is it possible to have an official OSG package working with the recent > SG/FG cvs, in order to have an acceptable frame rate ? I solved the issue (so I can at least use FG/OSG again) by using the last OSG CVS version (not SVN): OpenSceneGraph Library 1.2 But I had to remove the call: camera->setAllowEventFocus(false); in redout.cxx and splash.cxx to get it to build. I am surprised nobody using CVS/SVN FG/SG/OSG reports this issue (or replied to this) - there was a lot of chatter about it in IRC. Nick - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Radar improvement
Martin > > "gh.robin" wrote: > > > Their is a radar improvement, which has been developed recently by > > Vivian. > [...] > > That update has not been released into CVS. > > Any pointer ? Why don't you simply post a follow-up to his > announcement, so people don't have to start searching, > > Martin. > -- I discussed the improved radar with Melchior, he is very reluctant to include it because it is plib only. The existing radar and the improved version are disabled in osg. FWIW the diffs are here: ftp://abbeytheatre2.org.uk/fgfs/instrumentation/ And there are some screenshots here: ftp://abbeytheatre2.org.uk/fgfs/Screen-shots/radar2.jpg ftp://abbeytheatre2.org.uk/fgfs/Screen-shots/radar1.jpg The improved radar is capable of displaying raw radar contacts and or data for any AI Object in the environment (ships, aircraft, ballistic objects etc.), the radar horizon is calculated, and the Radar Equation is applied to determine detection ranges. Some assumptions are made about RCS. The map mode has been implemented, and the plan and weather modes retained, although the latter needs further work before I'm totally happy with it. Father improvements could be made in the area of RCS - we really need to access the type of AI Aircraft to make appropriate adjustments in the RCS, and I would like to add a fluctuation of the RCS as well. ATM it models a simple pulse radar, but I can simulate other types such as Doppler as a future enhancement. And, sorry, no terrain, that in the too-difficult tray right now. Oh, and I forgot - it also displays TACAN data. I've delayed making any announcement while I've been looking at its implementation in osg, but I think that's a way off yet. It's fun anyway :-) Vivian - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Latest OT/OSG/SG/FG unusable
Nick Warne wrote > > > On Thursday 10 May 2007 00:23:01 gh.robin wrote: > > On Mon 7 May 2007 17:05, Nick Warne wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > There seems to be an issue, reported by a few in IRC. > > > > > > Latest build from SVN/CVS makes FG unusable. Frame rates > are (for > > > me) at least 60% worse. > > > > > > E.g. pc7 at FHAW - before 43 - today after updates, 18. > > > > > > Lightning at KSFO - before 19 - today after updates 6 (unusable). > > > > > > Nick > > > > That issue remark look like an other previous topic "Frame rates". > > > > As far i could understand in IRC , that problem could be > solved when > > using an older OSG cvs version. I have tried to find which OSG cvs > > version could suit to our request. I did not find any. > > > > Is it possible to have an official OSG package working with the > > recent SG/FG cvs, in order to have an acceptable frame rate ? > > I solved the issue (so I can at least use FG/OSG again) by > using the last OSG > CVS version (not SVN): > > OpenSceneGraph Library 1.2 > > But I had to remove the call: > > camera->setAllowEventFocus(false); > > in redout.cxx and splash.cxx to get it to build. > > I am surprised nobody using CVS/SVN FG/SG/OSG reports this > issue (or replied > to this) - there was a lot of chatter about it in IRC. > I'm using osg-svn which is a couple of days old on Win XP, P4 2.8, 1.5 Gb RAM, nVidia 6200 256 Kb RAM. While frame rates are not good, and are a bit down on earlier versions, it's usable with 25-35 fps at KSFO with the Hurricane. Vivian - 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
[Flightgear-devel] A-10 updates: and an updated canopy mechanism
Hi,
Endlich: new (and simpler) nasal script for the A-10 canopy. Thanks M.
The diff file, A-10-20070410b.diff is attached.
Alexis
Index: Nasal/canopy.nas
===
RCS file: /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/A-10/Nasal/canopy.nas,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -p -r1.3 canopy.nas
--- Nasal/canopy.nas11 Jan 2007 12:54:49 - 1.3
+++ Nasal/canopy.nas10 May 2007 20:03:20 -
@@ -1,52 +1,32 @@
-# animation of the canopy switch and the canopy move
-# arg[0]: 1 and -1 = mouse click up/down aeras, 2 = keyb "C" toggle like.
+# used to the animation of the canopy switch and the canopy move
+# toggle keystroke or 2 position switch
-canopy_switch = func {
- input = arg[0];
- if ( ! getprop("sim/model/A-10/controls/canopy-lock") ) {
- setprop("sim/model/A-10/controls/canopy-lock", 1);
- if (input == 2 ) {
- if ( getprop("canopy/position-norm") < 1 ) {
- input = 1;
- } elsif ( getprop("canopy/position-norm") >= 1 ) {
- input = -1;
- }
- }
- if (input == 1 ) {
- setprop("controls/canopy-switch", 3);
- do_open();
- }
- elsif (input == -1) {
- setprop("controls/canopy-switch", 1);
- do_close();
+var cnpy = aircraft.door.new("canopy", 10);
+var switch =
props.globals.getNode("sim/model/A-10/controls/canopy/canopy-switch", 1);
+var pos = props.globals.getNode("canopy/position-norm", 1);
+
+canopy_switch = func(v) {
+
+ p = pos.getValue();
+
+ if (v == 2 ) {
+ if ( p < 1 ) {
+ v = 1;
+ } elsif ( p >= 1 ) {
+ v = -1;
}
}
-}
-do_open = func {
- if ( getprop("canopy/position-norm") < 1 ) {
- continue_move( 0.015 );
- } else {
- setprop("sim/model/A-10/controls/canopy-lock", 0);
- }
-}
+ if (v < 0) {
+ switch.setValue(1);
+ cnpy.close();
-do_close = func {
- if ( getprop("canopy/position-norm") > 0.01 ) {
- continue_move( -0.015 );
- } else {
- setprop("sim/model/A-10/controls/canopy-lock", 0);
- setprop("canopy/position-norm", 0)
- }
-}
+ } elsif (v > 0) {
+ switch.setValue(3);
+ cnpy.open();
-continue_move = func {
- position = getprop("canopy/position-norm");
- new_position = position + arg[0];
- setprop("canopy/position-norm", new_position);
- if ( arg[0] > 0 ) {
- settimer( do_open, 0.05);
- } elsif ( arg[0] < 0 ) {
- settimer( do_close, 0.05);
}
}
+
+
+
Index: A-10-set.xml
===
RCS file: /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/A-10/A-10-set.xml,v
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -p -r1.9 A-10-set.xml
--- A-10-set.xml4 May 2007 15:52:59 - 1.9
+++ A-10-set.xml10 May 2007 20:04:19 -
@@ -198,8 +198,9 @@ Fairchild A-10 simulation config.
- false
- 2
+
+ 2
+
1
Index: Models/A-10-canopy-switch.xml
===
RCS file:
/var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/A-10/Models/A-10-canopy-switch.xml,v
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.2 A-10-canopy-switch.xml
--- Models/A-10-canopy-switch.xml 5 Dec 2006 20:55:41 - 1.2
+++ Models/A-10-canopy-switch.xml 10 May 2007 20:05:24 -
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
switch
rotate
- controls/canopy-switch
+ sim/model/A-10/controls/canopy/canopy-switch
30
2.4829
-
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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Data change log for next release
>>The other thing I didn't notice mention of is the superb improvement in >>ground >>type representation in YASim which finally gives us water (with >>waves/swell) >>for seaplane operations and of course correct behaviour on other >>surfaces for >>other types of aircraft. >> >> > >I'm sure John W. will pick this up when he goes through the flightgear >source changes. > I'll have that done over the weekend, then you all can "ping" on me. ;-) JW - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Radar improvement
"Vivian Meazza" wrote: > I discussed the improved radar with Melchior, he is very reluctant to > include it because it is plib only. Well, personally I'd agree with him on that one, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
Hi, what's about using separate server(s) (not connected to the "classical" servers) for the dogfight mode? If you log on a "classical" server, you would have no dogfight capability. Maik James Palmer schrieb am 10.05.2007 16:58: I have a better idea on what is involved now for adding dogfighting to FG. Thanks to all who have given me input,.. Keep it coming. After talking with alot of you, here are the additional and more finely tuned ideas that I have. ...Suggested Solution #1 - DFMP is server driven and server coordinated: ... Suggested Solution #2 - DFMP is client driven and server coordinated: ... - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Radar improvement
Martin > > > "Vivian Meazza" wrote: > > > I discussed the improved radar with Melchior, he is very > reluctant to > > include it because it is plib only. > > Well, personally I'd agree with him on that one, > Martin. Well, there you go then, you won't get it in the next release. And I will do no more work on it until such time as osg is fixed, and that doen't look like being any time soon. Vivian - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Radar improvement
Martin Spott wrote: >"Vivian Meazza" wrote: > > > >>I discussed the improved radar with Melchior, he is very reluctant to >>include it because it is plib only. >> >> > >Well, personally I'd agree with him on that one, > Martin. > > The next fg version is a version based on plib and will be the official version for at least one year. Do you think that it's not worth to add new things that will be used for a so long period ? Harald. - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
James, "James Palmer" wrote: > Dogfight On/Off Option: (Thanks to Vivian) > -I will include an option for turning off dogfighting and still allowing > multi player. As someone pointed out we don't want some kid shooting down > everyone over San Fransisco while everyone else is doing serious flying. I'm not certain if it's really the kids we have to fear. I guess some grown-ups that are going wild are much worse ! In total I don't think such effort is for the benefit of the FlightGear simulator - well, the regulars on this list will remember that we already had such discussion several times. Putting dogfight and shooting/destroying capabilities into FlightGear will attract a dubious clientele that no serious 'pilot' wants to get molested by in their simulated environment. Certainly some of those people will find enough different ways to annoy the serious pilot even if he can block them from shooting him. As a consequence I'd propose considering to let this stuff run in an isolated environment, say a 'sandbox', where it can't do harm to the rest of us. Regards, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Radar improvement
Harald JOHNSEN wrote: > Martin Spott wrote: > >"Vivian Meazza" wrote: > >>I discussed the improved radar with Melchior, he is very reluctant to > >>include it because it is plib only. > >Well, personally I'd agree with him on that one, > The next fg version is a version based on plib and will be the official > version for at least one year. > Do you think that it's not worth to add new things that will be used for > a so long period ? Yes - because I still have the hope that we manage to get a release out of the door earlier next time, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Martin Spott > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 6:04 PM > To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting > > James, > > "James Palmer" wrote: > > > Dogfight On/Off Option: (Thanks to Vivian) -I will include > an option > > for turning off dogfighting and still allowing multi player. As > > someone pointed out we don't want some kid shooting down > everyone over > > San Fransisco while everyone else is doing serious flying. > > I'm not certain if it's really the kids we have to fear. I > guess some grown-ups that are going wild are much worse ! > In total I don't think such effort is for the benefit of the > FlightGear simulator - well, the regulars on this list will > remember that we already had such discussion several times. > > Putting dogfight and shooting/destroying capabilities into > FlightGear will attract a dubious clientele that no serious > 'pilot' wants to get molested by in their simulated > environment. Certainly some of those people will find enough > different ways to annoy the serious pilot even if he can > block them from shooting him. > > As a consequence I'd propose considering to let this stuff > run in an isolated environment, say a 'sandbox', where it > can't do harm to the rest of us. > > Regards, > Martin. > -- Wasn't FlightGear designed with the idea of NOT doing dogfighting? I think there is someone else out there that does a dogfighting simulation, but the name escapes me right now. Maybe you could search around looking for them, as they already have the ability to dogfight over the net. Bill - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Radar improvement
Martin Spott > > > Harald JOHNSEN wrote: > > Martin Spott wrote: > > >"Vivian Meazza" wrote: > > > >>I discussed the improved radar with Melchior, he is very > reluctant > > >>to include it because it is plib only. > > > >Well, personally I'd agree with him on that one, > > > The next fg version is a version based on plib and will be the > > official > > version for at least one year. > > Do you think that it's not worth to add new things that > will be used for > > a so long period ? > > Yes - because I still have the hope that we manage to get a > release out of the door earlier next time, > That is illogical - if the next release is soonish, it is likely that osg will still not be fixed. So plib improvements are contingent on osg improvements. Oh, and the improved radar can be applied to osg, it's just disabled, as is the current one, so no change there. Vivian - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
"Bill Galbraith" wrote: > Wasn't FlightGear designed with the idea of NOT doing dogfighting? Well, I just tried to express my concerns very politely :-) Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Radar improvement
Hi, Vivian Meazza schrieb am 11.05.2007 00:18: > That is illogical - if the next release is soonish, it is likely that osg > will still not be fixed. So plib improvements are contingent on osg > improvements. > > Oh, and the improved radar can be applied to osg, it's just disabled, as is > the current one, so no change there. > > Vivian > I didn't get the point. What is the argument against commiting the improved radar? Maik - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
On 5/10/07, Maik Justus wrote: what's about using separate server(s) (not connected to the "classical" servers) for the dogfight mode? If you log on a "classical" server, you would have no dogfight capability. Yes, combat, if it is pursued, should be done in a way so that at least the multiplayer part happens in it's own sandbox. There are some people involved in the FG project that do not enthusiasticly embrace weapons and are not excited about combat functionality. I think the goal here should be to tread cautiously, respect people's views and opinions on the matter, and from the other side, remember this is an open source project and there is a certain amount of freedom involved here that I would like to protect. Also it is worth pointing out that several current FlightGear aircraft already have the ability to fire guns, flares, rockets, drop bombs, drop parachuters, etc. I would also point out that there are valid flight testing and handling qualities tests that involve trying to line up your sights on a target aircraft ... and you need a way to determine if your pipper is calibrated correctly. :-) So my point should I discover one in the typing of this message might be that (a) we've already entered a good distance into the gray area, and (b) let's respect each other's views on this one, and (c) if we develop any kind of combat features, we need to be able to turn them off and ignore them so that they don't consume resources or cpu time for applications that don't need or want them. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson - University of Minnesota - FlightGear Project http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ http://www.flightgear.org Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
On Thu, 10 May 2007 22:22:32 + (UTC) Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Bill Galbraith" wrote: > > > Wasn't FlightGear designed with the idea of NOT doing dogfighting? > > Well, I just tried to express my concerns very politely :-) > > Martin. > -- > Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! Just to get my two cents worth in , I'm not too thrilled about this becoming a Combat Simulator... There is this project that might need some help http://csp.sourceforge.net/wiki/Main_Page It uses OSG , too , but I havent tried it ... syd & sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Radar improvement
On Fri, 11 May 2007 00:40:44 +0200 Maik Justus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > Vivian Meazza schrieb am 11.05.2007 00:18: > > That is illogical - if the next release is soonish, it is likely that osg > > will still not be fixed. So plib improvements are contingent on osg > > improvements. > > > > Oh, and the improved radar can be applied to osg, it's just disabled, as is > > the current one, so no change there. > > > > Vivian > > > I didn't get the point. What is the argument against commiting the > improved radar? > > Maik > Im afraid I dont understand either ... isn't CVS where developement happens , whether it's complete or not ??? syd & sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
On Thursday 10 May 2007 18:52, Curtis Olson wrote: > There are some people involved in the FG project that do not enthusiasticly > embrace weapons and are not excited about combat functionality. > > I think the goal here should be to tread cautiously, respect people's views > and opinions on the matter, and from the other side, remember this is an > open source project and there is a certain amount of freedom involved here > that I would like to protect. I am one of those who are not enthusiastic about adding weapons to FlightGear. However, if combat capability is added, I think we would need to limit its scope. In my opinion, putting cannons on to planes is acceptable, but dropping bombs on ground is pushing it. As to missiles and other "smart" weapons, I think they should be banned out right. Also, with cannons, a player must get into certain range to another for the weapons to be useful. So, the planes of the "naughty" ones can be rigged to explode if they are on an intercept course and are too close to an unarm aircraft. Ampere - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
On Thursday 10 May 2007 10:58, James Palmer wrote: > Suggested Solution #1 - DFMP is server driven and server coordinated: > The dogfighting MP (DFMP) should be server driven (thanks to Lethe for the > insight into this direction) and server coordinated. Clients should send > user input information to the server and let the server calculate where the > player is on the earth and inform the player of it. The server would also > be responsible for determining whether a collision has occured. This is > the approach taken by many of todays MP Internet games. If the server is capable of providing accurate and timely positioning information on aircraft, then the clients can do the collision detection. Ampere - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
There is a way which satisfied everybody : make an official "add-on" with full weapons capabilities (not me, i'm not please to have this in default code, just because my children play with it). People who doesn't like weapons, doesn't install the add-on. Le Friday 11 May 2007 07:51:51 Ampere K. Hardraade, vous avez écrit : > I am one of those who are not enthusiastic about adding weapons to > FlightGear. However, if combat capability is added, I think we would need > to limit its scope. > > In my opinion, putting cannons on to planes is acceptable, but dropping > bombs on ground is pushing it. As to missiles and other "smart" weapons, I > think they should be banned out right. > > Also, with cannons, a player must get into certain range to another for the > weapons to be useful. So, the planes of the "naughty" ones can be rigged > to explode if they are on an intercept course and are too close to an unarm > aircraft. > > > > Ampere -- Didier Fabert [EMAIL PROTECTED] KFreeFlight project : A FlightGear GUI-Frontend designed for KDE users http://kfreeflight.sourceforge.net - 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
Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
Hello, after reading this thread I also want to drop some words: First I thaught dogfight would be nice. Ok, there will ever be cheaters and people who cannot differentiate between simple "fun" playing and the real world. But I think this is not the problem of FlightGear. In _my_ opinion (nevertheless if I am a pacifist or not) there are some more important things an the todo-list than dogfight (e.g. the "wall-of-weather-problem"). So why not take the available coding resources for doing things that will be help to gain the realism of the project in a peaceful way? If I really want playing dogfights I can use one of the current available simulators... Regards, Holger -- # ## ## Holger Wirtz Phone : (+49 30) 884299-40 ## ## ## ### ## DFN-Verein Fax : (+49 30) 884299-70 ## ## ## Stresemannstr. 78E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## ## ## ## ### 10963 Berlin # ## ## ## GERMANY WWW : http://www.dfn.de GPG-Fingerprint: ABFA 1F51 DD8D 503C 85DC 0C51 E961 79E2 6685 9BCF - 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
