[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [certi-dev] FlightGear FOM

From: Martin Spott
Subject: Re: [certi-dev] FlightGear FOM
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 20:18:44 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: tin/1.9.3-20080506 ("Dalintober") (UNIX) (Linux/ (x86_64))

Hi Eric,

Eric Noulard wrote:
> 2009/5/25 Martin Spott <address@hidden>:

>> We ("The FlightGear Community") already _do_ have a nicely working
>> OpenSource ATC workplace which is designed to switch different
>> 'frontends' for use with different protocols (FlightGear MultiPlayer,
>> probably FLARM, maybe even real data according to EUROCONTROL's specs)
>> and adapting that one to CERTI/VirtualAir ist just a matter of having a
>> working testbed with FlightGear (which is now available) and at least a
>> rudimentary Java interface to CERTI.
> Adding a Java HLA binding to CERTI has been asked several times.
> The fact is we have some beginning work on this subject:
> https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?6905
> but it is not near the end. It was a student intnership which was not long
> enough to put the task till the end.
> May I ask why you need Java interface to CERTI ?
> Do you want to have an HLA Federate which is 100% Java?

Actually the "OpenRadar" client is written in 100% Java - which
includes the visible parts of the ATC screen, network protocol
decoders, geodata readers (to load airfield layouts, sector data,
shorelines and the such). Indeed, pure Java, as you say, which runs
perfectly on every Java 1.6 runtime I've seen so far. Personally I
don't like Java applications (too much bad experience with commercial
admin-frontends) but I have to admit that this one is done really,
_really_ well.
The primary author is a little bit 'insisting' about "doing things
right"  :-)  Thus, having a pure Java abstraction layer to CERTI would
certainly be first choice.

> Would  a Portico/CERTI bridge be enough? (see http://www.porticoproject.org/)
> Or do you really need "native" CERTI in Java?

Yup, I know about Portico, but adding the entire Portico RTI to the
game plus a CERTI bridge would make the entire thing a bit bloated and
a lot more complex. I suspect that our friendly primary author would
rather implement CERTI's wire protocol in Java himself than plugging
yet another beast into the queue.

 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]