--- 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 civil MP
--- 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 magically
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 figure
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
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 would ruin
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 expect even
-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
Hi,
Gene Buckle wrote:
Martin, the 300ms
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
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
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 in
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
and
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't.
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 fdm
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 plane in
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 as
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
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] More ideas on dogfighting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED
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.
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
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 the server is doing the
FDM computation it's obvious
-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,
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 sets
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. As
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 fdm
-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
Maik Justus wrote:
Does anyone know
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 right
-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 Bill,
Bill Galbraith wrote
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. [...]
Uh, 300 ms
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.
Hey,
-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 also
--- 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.
snip
Hi James,
It is wonderful that you are so enthusiastic about contributing to the
project, and commendable that you are really
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
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.
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
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
-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
the
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash
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.
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 mode,
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.
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
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.
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 combat ready
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.
Maik
I'd agree
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
_
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
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
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
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
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)
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. nurture
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 to bash
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
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
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 plan
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 the
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
turning
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
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
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 laugh
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-state me
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 past
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
]
[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
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
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.
-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
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 !
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
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
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
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
71 matches
Mail list logo
