20,741
edits
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
=Customizing [[Atlas]] for use as an ATC client = | =Customizing [[Atlas]] for use as an ATC client = | ||
In the scope of the ATC discussion, we have also talked about extending [[Atlas]] to use it as the foundation for a standalone ATC client, concentrating on a maximum degree of code reuse. | In the scope of the ongoing ATC discussion, we have also talked about extending [[Atlas]] to use it as the foundation for a standalone ATC client, concentrating on a maximum degree of code reuse. This is a fairly old idea, which has already been suggested 5 years ago: []. | ||
It seems, that most of the existing atlas features could be used for ATC purposes, too. While only very few new features would be needed that would require changes to the C++ source code. This would make it possible to generalize the atlas code some more, so that using Atlas for ATC purposes would merely be a different "mode". | It seems, that most of the existing atlas features could be used for ATC purposes, too. While only very few new features would be needed that would require changes to the C++ source code. This would make it possible to generalize the atlas code some more, so that using Atlas for ATC purposes would merely be a different "mode". | ||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
* how about reusing data that is already sent to FlightGear (that would require a running FlightGear instance) | * how about reusing data that is already sent to FlightGear (that would require a running FlightGear instance) | ||
== Atlas features not required for ATC == | |||
* the terrain view should be probably be made optional? | |||
== Atlas features that should eventually become more configurable == | |||
* symbols used for navaids, airports and runways? | |||
== Roadmap == | == Roadmap == | ||
=== Milestone 1 === | === Milestone 1 === |