[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [certi-dev] FlightGear simulation latency

From: Martin Spott
Subject: Re: [certi-dev] FlightGear simulation latency
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 12:30:49 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: tin/1.9.3-20080506 ("Dalintober") (UNIX) (Linux/ (x86_64))

Hi Petr,

"Gotthard, Petr" wrote:

>> BTW, just for the sake of completeness, I understand that the RPR FOM
>> very well allows to represent flaps or landing gear and lots of other
>> stuff as an articulated part of an (aircraft) object - I think this is
>> a DIS heritage. Did I miss anything relevant ?
> Isn't that too complex? I'd prefer to just add a proprietary "on/off"
> parameter like in ASN FOM. The level of standard compliancy would be the
> same.

Well, in general - which means: as long as I don't have to do the work
myself  ;-)  - I'd always be in favour of complying with existing
standards wherever it's possible. Thus, if the RPR FOM allows to
represent flap movement then I'd say it's the way to go.
On the other hand, there are sooo many details in FlightGear which are
worth getting shown in a MultiPlayer environment but which are in no
way covered by the RPR FOM, that it finally doesn't make a huge
difference because almost every FOM (at minimum ASN and RPR) would
require some extension in order to cover all these features.

Just one example: RPR provides a single value to deal with retractable
landing gear (as an articulated part). Flightgear, in contrast, allows
to simulate each gear individually. Some aircraft even simulate landing
gear failures which allow an instructor (on a remote console) to let
the left main gear hang in a partially extended position.

I know that covering these details is very distant from the primary
focus of your VirtualAir project (you're mostly aiming at traffic
simulation in controlled airspace, don't you?), but if CERTI/VirtualAir
were to substitute or at least serve as an alternative to the current
native MultiPlayer network (in fact it's currently just a grid of
braindead packet-relays), then it doesn't make a large difference which
FOM is being taken as a foundation.

It might be interesting to find out how the various commercial HLA
plug-in's for Microsoft Flight Simulator and/or X-Plane chose to deal
with this topic ....

Best regards,
 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]