"Vivian Meazza" wrote:
> I have today sent a bug fix to Erik for some outstanding problems with the
> multiplayer implementation, but which also includes extrapolation of the
> client position using 1st and 2nd derivatives.
Now, I'm thrilled to hear that, this is definitely the right (TM)
directi
Major A wrote
Snip ...
> The last issue (though not very important) is visualization. Though
> not a voice issue, it would have to be dealt with as part of the
> system sooner or later. VATSIM pilot clients, to the best of my
> knowledge, only send information on the position and attitude of the
> I'm not sbolutely sure but I believe different countries have different
> UNICOM frequencies. Germany uses 123,45, as far as I remember we used
> different frequency on a trip to Denmark
That's why it would have to be multiple virtual ATC posts. The
distance checking we would have to do a
> I'm not sure whether TCP is a good idea. After all TCP tries
> retransmitting packets over and over even on a temporary line problem.
> Voice packets are not that important. If transmissions are lost, it's
> not a problem for voice and might even add to the realism. ;-)
True -- I was (wrongl
Christian Mayer wrote:
The usual SIP based VoIP is -- IIRC -- a P2P network that uses a central
server (the SIP server) to establish the connection.
If you are already thinking of Asterisk you might have a good look
there. Chances are that it implements already the required stuff.
SIP has pro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ralf Gerlich schrieb:
> Regarding NAT problems: Have a look at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3489.txt
>
> It describes STUN, a protocol which can be used for traversing NATs
> using UDP, even if both partners are behind a NAT. There's a similar
> thing f
Major A schrieb:
Latency on the voice channel is not a problem, since radio
communication is always PTT-based. So I would go for the simplest
option of using the speex codec and a simple TCP-based protocol (maybe
using the streaming parts from IAX2?). Just make sure it traverses NAT
routers trans
Hello Andras,
thanks for your feedback. I think I'll have to read your posting twice,
as I'm short in time, but I already found some appealing ideas (because
they almost match what I have in mind :-))
Major A wrote:
> This also means that UNICOM must be voice, not text-only as on
> VATSIM. This
> I'd be very happy to hear your opinion on VATSIM, as I've ben trying to
> push the idea of human voic ATC within FlightGear. I _do_ have some
> ideas how voice ATC could/should be realized but my ideas didn't fall
> on prolific soil,
OK, here's the breakdown. I've used VATSIM with FS2004+FSInn
Major A wrote:
> I'd love to see human ATC (like VATSIM) becoming reality one day, so I
> can ditch FS2004 and X-Plane and fly online with fgfs. Has there been
> any progress on that so far? If there's interest, I can tell you what
> I like and what I dislike about the way it's done in VATSIM, tho
> Maybe I am out of the subject. Was somebody
> intersted in taking the development of the voice ATC.
> If no I will be very happy to help and to take it and
> to start to dig/read/document/propose
> solutions/develop about the voice ATC subject.
By voice ATC, do you mean computer-generated
Hi all,
Maybe I am out of the subject. Was somebody
intersted in taking the development of the voice ATC.
If no I will be very happy to help and to take it and
to start to dig/read/document/propose
solutions/develop about the voice ATC subject.
P.S . Before the list changed its location
12 matches
Mail list logo
