Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

--- "Ampere K. Hardraade" wrote: > On Monday 14 May 2007 04:38, Stuart Buchanan wrote: > > If what you are suggesting is that to use MP, we will have to run the > FDM > > on a server and accept a much lower refresh rate on the client, then I > > don't think that is acceptable as it will make the ci

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

On Monday 14 May 2007 04:38, Stuart Buchanan wrote: > If what you are suggesting is that to use MP, we will have to run the FDM > on a server and accept a much lower refresh rate on the client, then I > don't think that is acceptable as it will make the civil MP experience > much worse. This isn't

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

On Sunday 13 May 2007, Jonathan Wagner wrote: > Maik, > > These are not "dogfight-only" problems. These are multiplayer problems > which currently are not addressed well in the current multiplayer > implementation. On the public servers with high latency, multiplayer > flight can be choppy as a p

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

On Sunday 13 May 2007, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: > On Sunday 13 May 2007 13:18, Harald JOHNSEN wrote: > > If the server does the fdm 100 times per second and send the data 10 > > times per second it's like if the client was running the fdm at 10 hz. > > That's why I said it's not needed to run the

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

On Sunday 13 May 2007, Bill Galbraith wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Stefan Seifert > > Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 10:38 PM > > To: FlightGear developers discussions > >

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

On Friday 11 May 2007, Gene Buckle wrote: > The problem is one of network latency. This has been a major hurdle for > games like Aces High, Air Warrior and WWII Online. The server should > handle the collision to avoid situations where the shooter client sees a > hit and the shootee client doesn'

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Hi, On Friday 11 May 2007, Martin Spott wrote: > "Vivian Meazza" wrote: > > Well, as the Irish would say, if you want to get there, you don't want to > > start here. Good luck. And if you want to see how much work would be > > involved, compare that task with the cutover to osg - now 6 months old

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Hi, On Saturday 12 May 2007, Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: > While development over the past few years might give the preception that > Flightgear is a game, Flightgear is actually meant to be a serious flight > simulator. Things that go boom are cool in games, but they are also > useless; more so

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

You guys might want to give this a read. I found it helpful as an introduction when I was looking at this multiplayer stuff a few years ago: http://www.valve-erc.com/srcsdk/general/multiplayer_networking.html Because of their "fast-paced" competitive nature, First Person Shooters have extremely ti

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Hi James, "James Palmer" wrote: > If it is overly burdensome on framerate due to latency, I see no reason why > a server cannont support both architectures (single and split). [...] > -As I investigate this proposed architecture, I plan to avoid splitting the > FG world. I do plan to allow easy

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

On 5/14/07, Bill Galbraith wrote: If I remember correctly, the human eye can detect something less than about 15-20 fps. The number that comes to my mind is about 22? Movies that you'd see in a theater run at 24 fps I believe. One aditional element though that is *critical* is that this has

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Ralf Gerlich > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:23 AM > To: FlightGear developers discussions > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting > >

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Hi, Gene Buckle wrote: >>> Martin, the 300ms figure is really only applicable to a Level A simulator >>> which is basically equivalent to a cockpit procedures trainer with no >>> visuals. >> Ok - that one makes sense. On the other hand, any type of 'tricky' VFR >> flight with 300 ms delay, I'd exp

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

> > Martin, the 300ms figure is really only applicable to a Level A simulator > > which is basically equivalent to a cockpit procedures trainer with no > > visuals. > > Ok - that one makes sense. On the other hand, any type of 'tricky' VFR > flight with 300 ms delay, I'd expect even with 150 ms wou

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Stuart wrote: I think our current MP architecture is superb for the following reasons: - Setting it up is straightforward - it is light-weight. The load on the client and server is low - personally I have it switched on permanently - so people are encouraged to use it for general flying, even if t

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Gene Buckle wrote: > > Personally I'd go crazy in the real Cessna if it would take me one > > third of a second until the beast starts !! responding to a control > > movement - this would turn almost every landing at gusty crosswind into > > a really difficult situation > > Martin, the 300ms

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

--- Jonathan Wagner wrote: > These are not "dogfight-only" problems. These are multiplayer problems > which currently are not addressed well in the current multiplayer > implementation. On the public servers with high latency, multiplayer > flight can be choppy as a plane in your view "magical

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

> > coupled closely to provide integrated sensory > > cues 6 These systems shall respond to abrupt > > pitch, roll and yaw inputs at the pilot's position > > within 150/300 milliseconds of the time, but not > > before the time, when the airplane would respond > > under the same conditions. [...]" >

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Martin Spott > Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 5:01 PM > To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting > > Hi

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Maik, These are not "dogfight-only" problems. These are multiplayer problems which currently are not addressed well in the current multiplayer implementation. On the public servers with high latency, multiplayer flight can be choppy as a plane in your view "magically" disappears from your ri

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Harald JOHNSEN wrote: > Vivian Meazza wrote: > > >> Harald >> >> >> >> >>> Sent: 13 May 2007 18:19 >>> To: FlightGear developers discussions >>> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-deve

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Hi Bill, "Bill Galbraith" wrote: > "Relative responses of the motion system, > visual system, and cockpit instruments shall be > coupled closely to provide integrated sensory > cues 6 These systems shall respond to abrupt > pitch, roll and yaw inputs at the pilot's position > within 150/300 milli

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Martin Spott > Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 4:17 PM > To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting > > Mai

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Hi Ampere, yes, but solving this dogfight-only problem by bringing in a general problem for every flightgear user is much worse. Maik Ampere K. Hardraade schrieb am 13.05.2007 21:25: > On Sunday 13 May 2007 15:05, Maik Justus wrote: > >> Maybe it is easier, that the clients run their own f

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Maik Justus wrote: > Does anyone know, which latency between control input and visible > reaction is acceptable (== unnoticeable)? I'm unable to cite a qualified source from the top of my head. Yet I remember different people talking and/or writing about not to exceed a delay of approx. 50 ms. A

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

On Sunday 13 May 2007 15:05, Maik Justus wrote: > Maybe it is easier, that the clients run their own fdm and the > combat-server makes a test of the actual performance of the client > against stored values, which could be generated by a script (maximum > acceleration, turn rate, speed for several s

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Hi, James Palmer schrieb am 13.05.2007 03:14: > Harald, > > You are correct, solution #1 does require the server to run all of the > FDM for all players in multiplayer mode. Does anyone know, which latency between control input and visible reaction is acceptable (== unnoticeable)? The worst case

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

On Sunday 13 May 2007 13:18, Harald JOHNSEN wrote: > If the server does the fdm 100 times per second and send the data 10 > times per second it's like if the client was running the fdm at 10 hz. > That's why I said it's not needed to run the fdm at more than 10 hz > (those numbers are just examples

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Harald JOHNSEN wrote: > > That was in the situation where the MP server does the fdm computation > for the client. The 10 hz comes from a ping of 100 ms between the client > and the server. I think FDM caculations have to be at a certain rate, ind

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Vivian Meazza wrote: >Harald > > > >>Sent: 13 May 2007 18:19 >>To: FlightGear developers discussions >>Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting >> >> >>Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: >> >> >> >>>

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Harald > Sent: 13 May 2007 18:19 > To: FlightGear developers discussions > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting > > > Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: > > >On Sunday 13 May 2007 03:52, Harald JOHNSEN wrote: > > > > > >>Now if

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: >On Sunday 13 May 2007 03:52, Harald JOHNSEN wrote: > > >>Now if the server is doing the >>FDM computation it's obvious that there is no need to do that 120 times >>per second because the data can not be send at that rate. >>How many loops does the mp server need to do

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

On Sunday 13 May 2007 03:52, Harald JOHNSEN wrote: > Now if the server is doing the > FDM computation it's obvious that there is no need to do that 120 times > per second because the data can not be send at that rate. > How many loops does the mp server need to do per second ? 10 ? 20 ? At > that f

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

> I think that was investigated a few months ago. JSBSim FDM took only a > couple percent of the CPU, or course depending on your hardware > and what you were drawing. > > BIll I didn't see that one. In any case, I just made a 200 second scripted test run, which took 42 seconds on my 2 GHz clunker

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Bill Galbraith wrote: > > > > >>-Original Message- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>Behalf Of Stefan Seifert >>Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 10:38 PM >>To: FlightGear developers discussions >>Sub

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 20:14 -0500, James Palmer wrote: > Harald, > > You are correct, solution #1 does require the server to run all of the > FDM for all players in multiplayer mode. > However, I think you are incorrect about additions or adjustments to > the FDM. When using FG in single player

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

> I think that was investigated a few months ago. JSBSim FDM took only a > couple percent of the CPU, or course depending on your hardware > and what you were drawing. > > BIll I didn't see that one. In any case, I just made a 200 second scripted test run, which took 42 seconds on my 2 GHz clunker

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Stefan Seifert > Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 10:38 PM > To: FlightGear developers discussions > Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting > > --

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 James Palmer wrote: > In your experience, Harald, what has been the approximate ratio of FDM vs > Graphics vs remainder code on CPU time? Has anyone done work on clocking > the various subroutines in FG to determine this? (Perhaps I underestimate >

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Harald, You are correct, solution #1 does require the server to run all of the FDM for all players in multiplayer mode. However, I think you are incorrect about additions or adjustments to the FDM. When using FG in single player mode, the player has both the client and server on the same machine

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 11:06 -0500, James Palmer wrote: > Thanks for the input Harald. > > -I'm going more away from Solution #2 and more toward Solution #1. James, Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Solution #1 require the server to run the FDM therefor preventing anyone but the server owner f

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Thanks for the input Harald. -I'm going more away from Solution #2 and more toward Solution #1. -Yes I'm aware that I need to be aware of the ground. I haven't given it detailed thought yet, so the details here are still a bit fuzzy. I plan to consider this more when I write the proposal. I'm

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

James Palmer wrote: > 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 f

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Stuart wrote: What you are suggesting is very, very, ambitious. As I understand it, you intend to 1) Completely re-architect FG 2) Completely re-write the MP protocol 3) Add collision detection 4) Improve sub-models for munitions. Off the top of my head, I'd say that represents something in the

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

--- James Palmer wrote: > 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. Hi James, It is wonderful that you are so enthusiastic about contributing to the project, and commendable that you are really thinkin

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Stefan Seifert schrieb: > ... ... > So the question would be: are these advantages (and a larger user base) > worth the increased perception of FlightGear being a game? > > Nine Hi, game or simulation - there is no difference between a civilian and a military oriented branch. As an example, we no

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ampere K. Hardraade wrote: > > While development over the past few years might give the preception that > Flightgear is a game, Flightgear is actually meant to be a serious flight > simulator. Things that go boom are cool in games, but they are als

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

On Fri, 11 May 2007, Martin Spott wrote: > Gene Buckle wrote: > > > Horsepucky. Combat in Flight Gear would _never_ be a "shoot-em game". > > Virtual != Real. EVER. If your little linoleum lizard can't understand > > that, it's YOUR fault. Don't nanny-state me because you can't grow a > > pair

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

On Friday 11 May 2007 10:28, Gene Buckle wrote: > Banned? BANNED?! Good luck with that. > > If this wasn't involving a _simulator_, I might be inclined to agree with > you. However, it's a bloody _game_. Things that go *boom* in games are > typically pretty cool. While development over the pas

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

On Fri, 11 May 2007 21:58:50 + (UTC) Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gene Buckle wrote: > > > Horsepucky. Combat in Flight Gear would _never_ be a "shoot-em game". > > Virtual != Real. EVER. If your little linoleum lizard can't understand > > that, it's YOUR fault. Don't nanny-s

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Gene Buckle wrote: > Horsepucky. Combat in Flight Gear would _never_ be a "shoot-em game". > Virtual != Real. EVER. If your little linoleum lizard can't understand > that, it's YOUR fault. Don't nanny-state me because you can't grow a > pair. Hey, thanks for providing such a nice occasion to

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

James Palmer schrieb: > I'm sorry if I've hit a sore spot with some by bringing up dogfighting > development. > I still intend to investigate the possibility more, but I will completely > make the capability an "opt-in" type. > I'm thinking along the lines of a 3 command line option set. (see only

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

I'm sorry if I've hit a sore spot with some by bringing up dogfighting development. I still intend to investigate the possibility more, but I will completely make the capability an "opt-in" type. I'm thinking along the lines of a 3 command line option set. (see only non-dogfighters, see only dogf

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

> > I heavily doubt. The simple fact that already these small kids are so > > much influenced by depiction of war/crime, that they consider taking > > the flute for a rifle (even resp. especially if it's just a game) as > > common practice, should scare us - and certainly this doesn't justify > > t

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

On 5/11/07, Martin Spott wrote: As a little add-on we could ask ourselves if associating a flute with "bang, bang" is really something that relies on our genes I heavily doubt. The simple fact that already these small kids are so much influenced by depiction of war/crime, that they conside

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

"Vivian Meazza" wrote: > Well, as the Irish would say, if you want to get there, you don't want to > start here. Good luck. And if you want to see how much work would be > involved, compare that task with the cutover to osg - now 6 months old and > nowhere near completion. Indeed, implementing th

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Palmer Sent: 11 May 2007 13:06 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting Thanks to all for the input... the collaboration of many is what makes FG so great in my opinion. I still pl

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Hi James, but how do I explain to my daughters, that suddenly one of the circling planes disappears? Periodically! And from the other point of view: -A combat-player probably would not like to decide each time, if the aircraft on the radar is in the civilian mode or in the dogfight mode. -Two ca

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

"Curtis Olson" wrote: [... kids saying bang, bang, bang ...] > So I think we can debate nature vs. nurture all day long, but at some level, > wanting to make things explode and enjoying it when they do ... is in our, > uhhh ... genes (sorrry about that Gene) :-) no matter how hard we try to > deny

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Gene Buckle wrote: [... lots of stuff ...] As I already said in an earlier posting: "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 !" I fear there's not much to add :-/ Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

> > Right. Online combat and Chess have two things in common. First, they're > > both forms of one on one combat and secondly, nobody ever dies from > > either. Actually, online combat would be safer than Chess I think. You'd > > never have to worry about playing some nutjob that just might try

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

On 5/11/07, Gene Buckle wrote: Right. Online combat and Chess have two things in common. First, they're both forms of one on one combat and secondly, nobody ever dies from either. Actually, online combat would be safer than Chess I think. You'd never have to worry about playing some nutjob th

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

> thing a 2 year old boy is going to do the first time he sees some longish > rigid toy to play with ... of course he's going to pick it up and point it > an someone and say bang, bang, bang. > Give 'em a P90. They're kid sized. :) (See Gunslinger Girls) > So I think we can debate nature vs. nur

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

On 5/11/07, Gene Buckle wrote: If this wasn't involving a _simulator_, I might be inclined to agree with you. However, it's a bloody _game_. Things that go *boom* in games are typically pretty cool. (unless you're against the unfair exploitation and destruction of things that don't exist) Th

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

> > 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 calculat

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

> 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. > The only limit that should be in place would be a client control that would ignore physical effects and would not display visual

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

_ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Palmer Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 8:06 AM To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting Thanks to all for the input... the collaboration of many is what makes FG

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Thanks to all for the input... the collaboration of many is what makes FG so great in my opinion. I still plan to eventually add some sort of dogfighting capability, HOWEVER,... I plan to start in the area detailed by this document

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Detlef Faber > > > Am Donnerstag, den 10.05.2007, 23:55 +0200 schrieb Maik Justus: > > 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. > > >

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Am Donnerstag, den 10.05.2007, 23:55 +0200 schrieb Maik Justus: > 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 I'd agree to seperate the "com

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

Holger Wirtz wrote > 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

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 (neverth

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

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 informatio

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 ma

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

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 multipl

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 ! ---

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

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 fly

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 dogfi

Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting

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 wh

[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 opti