Hi fellow wiki editors!

To help newly registered users get more familiar with the wiki (and maybe older users too) there is now a {{Welcome to the wiki}} template. Have a look at it and feel free to add it to new users discussion pages (and perhaps your own).

I have tried to keep the template short, but meaningful. /Johan G

Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

FlightGear Headless

23,956 bytes added, 19:09, 10 August 2017
FlightGear Headless
{{Template:RFC NavigationNon-stable|version=2018.x|progress=30}} {{Portability Navbar}}
= FlightGear Headless =
{{Main article|Supporting multiple renderers}}
there is no document listing the minimum set of stable features. If someone wants to write one, they can do it, but I guess they won’t volunteer to test release candidates against it; indeed getting people to even run them has been a struggle.<ref>{{cite web |url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/35990557/ |title = Status (10 <nowiki> Re: [Flightgear-devel] carrier features: is there any modification , your policy related ? </2012) nowiki> |author = <nowiki> James Turner </nowiki> |date = Aug 10th, 2017 |added = Aug 10th, 2017 |script_version = 0.40 }}</ref>
As of 10/2012with the new test framework it should be possible to add tests for carrier start, this as I already did to ensure runway selection with METAR. Indeed the position init code is being worked on a very good candidate for testing this way since we broken different aspects (also see [parking position startup, WXR runway selection, the carrier, probably some more things<ref>{{cite web |url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/35990557/ |title = <nowiki> Re: [FlightGear Run LevelsFlightgear-devel]])carrier features:is there any modification , your policy related ? </nowiki> |author = <nowiki> James Turner </nowiki> |date = Aug 10th, 2017 |added = Aug 10th, 2017 |script_version = 0.40 }}</ref>
{{cquote|I'm working The original FG scene graph design is based on a prototype rigid assumptions of this - with no X11 / VLC required at all. It will load scenery tiles (the ordering of the sequence of events for ground-intersections) but no views or renderingstart up and shut down. Branch management is highly inconsistent, and is scattered all over the flightgear and simgear codebases. But don't be it worked perfectly due to the fixed event sequences. The new subsystem design however brings in a rush much more flexible design, whereby systems can be dynamically turned on, turned off, restarted, initialised, reinitialised, etc. This is essential for something to appear in Gitenabling rebooting, itand allows for custom FlightGear usage of only a small subset of systems and for 's just an experiment''a headless mode'''. The OSG+subsystem breakage occurred once the scene manager subsystem was fully converted to the new design. The OSG scene graph root is created at the start of FGScenery::init(). With the subsystem design, the scene graph root may not be present when other flightgear/simgear code paths are called to create, manage, or destroy the various scene graph branches.<ref>{{cite web |url =httpshttp://codesourceforge.google.comnet/p/flightgear-bugs/issuesmailman/detail?id=882 message/35048478/ |title =Issues 882 (Improved CI <nowiki>[Flightgear-devel] Integration of the new subsystem design and the OSG scene graph management.</ regression testing support by providing options to disable interactive features (sound/window))nowiki> |author=James Turner <nowiki>Edward d'Auvergne</nowiki> |date =Sep 26Apr 28th, 20122016 | added = Apr 28th, 2016 | script_version = 0.26 }}</ref>|James Turner}}
Another option is to make [[The FlightGear Rendering Pipeline|FGRenderer]] the optional piece - James Turner started doing some work in this direction in December 2015. I.e without FGRenderer there is no rendering at all, and hence no scene-graph.<ref>{{cquotecite web |Make subsystems createurl = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/35064249/ |title = <nowiki>Re: [Flightgear-able devel] Integration of the new subsystem design and removable from commands the OSG scene graph management. Only some subsystems are supported so far</nowiki> |author = <nowiki>James Turner</nowiki> |date = May 4th, since many have non-default constructors or other complexities2016 |added = May 4th, 2016 |script_version = 0.31 }}</ref>
With thiswe should really do with with subclassing, change, it's possible to dynamically add and remove the traffic-manager at runtime, for examplemaking an SGDisplaySubsystem with: fgcommand* virtual void initVisuals("add-subsystem", props.Node.new); * virtual void updateVisuals({ "subsystem": "traffic-manager", "name":"traffic-manager", "do-bind-init":1}); * virtual void shutdownVisuals();<ref>{{cite web |url=https://gitorious.org/fg/flightgear/commit/8608a480736651999c5ea31a489343ee097ee915 |title=Initial work on dynamic subsystem creation.|author=James Turner |date=Oct 01, 2012}}</ref>|James Turner}}
With the expectation that the manager layer (FGScenery or FGRenderer) calls initVisuals / updateVisuals / shutdownVisuals if it exists. This also forces the implementation of each subsystem to distinguish simulation pieces (modifies properties) from display pieces (reads but hopefully does not modify properties, modifies OSG/rendering state, i.e. visuals) <ref>{{cite web
|url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/35064249/
|title = <nowiki>Re: [Flightgear-devel] Integration of the new subsystem design and
the OSG scene graph management.</nowiki>
|author = <nowiki>James Turner</nowiki>
|date = May 4th, 2016
|added = May 4th, 2016
|script_version = 0.31
}}
</ref>
 
<references/>
 
== Motivation ==
{{FGCquote
|1= these are exactly the same types of changes I was thinking of for fully decoupling all the various parts of FlightGear for use in a CppUnit-based test suite
|2= {{cite web
| url = http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=277299#p277299
| title = <nowiki>Re: FGPython an propose for Python as an nasal alternative</nowiki>
| author = <nowiki>bugman</nowiki>
| date = Feb 23rd, 2016
| added = Feb 23rd, 2016
| script_version = 0.25
}}
}}
 
{{FGCquote
|1= what remains true is the that overwhelming majority of the FlightGear main loop time is spent rendering the graphics.
|2= {{cite web
| url = http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/34811441/
| title = <nowiki>Re: [Flightgear-devel] Designing a thread-safe property tree API</nowiki>
| author = <nowiki>Curtis Olson</nowiki>
| date = Feb 1st, 2016
}}
}}
{{FGCquote
|1= That's not to say there aren't some bottlenecks in our rendering pipeline that need to eventually be dealt with, but these are more tied to our use of properties and nasal in graphics system call backs (much of this we inherited from the original design which was build around plib's SG (scene graph) library.)
|2= {{cite web
| url = http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/34811441/
| title = <nowiki>Re: [Flightgear-devel] Designing a thread-safe property tree API</nowiki>
| author = <nowiki>Curtis Olson</nowiki>
| date = Feb 1st, 2016
}}
}}
 
[[File:Patching-fg-3.2-to-make-more-subsystems-optional.png|450px|thumb|Screen shot showing a the performance monitor in a patched version of FlightGear 3.2 where subsystem initialization is made better configurable and increasingly optional by allowing subsystems to be explicitly disabled/enabled during startup. Decoupling internal subsystem dependencies means that we can more easily provide support for [[FlightGear Benchmark|benchmarking]], but also [[FlightGear Headless|headless]] regression testing - and eventually, also a standalone [[FGCanvas]] startup mode.]]
 
{{Note|Also see [[Testing]]}}
 
{{FGCquote|1=If we want to remove an subsystem from the flight gear source code, without leaving any trace of it.. What are the essential steps ?(for example, if the sound update has to be removed, what are steps to be followed).|2= {{cite web | url = http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=255555#p255555 | title = <nowiki>Steps for Removing subsystems in flightgear source code</nowiki> | author = <nowiki>Divi</nowiki> | date = Aug 31st, 2015 }}}}
 
{{FGCquote
|the route manager has a fairly nasty bug that results in memory consumption increasing throughout a flight. The rate at which it increases appears to increase with the number of waypoints, with a flight of 20 waypoints experiencing an increase of over 2GB per hour in my tests. The longer the flight, the more waypoints it tends to have and the more unsustainable the growth becomes.
|{{cite web |url=http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/33493896/
|title=<nowiki>Memory leak most likely from route manager in 3.4.0 and next</nowiki>
|author=<nowiki>Richard Senior</nowiki>
|date=<nowiki>2015-02-25 22:00:53</nowiki>
}}
}}
 
{{FGCquote
|I am wishing I could easily add tests for the route-path / GPS code, but anything that needs ‘globals’ is hard to test in isolation.
|{{cite web |url=http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/33226290/
|title=<nowiki>Re: [Flightgear-devel] ATIS and negative temperatures (+ very fast
speech)</nowiki>
|author=<nowiki>James Turner</nowiki>
|date=<nowiki>2015-01-12</nowiki>
}}
}}
 
{{FGCquote
|I appreciate that would require us to have a unit-testing infrastructure, and way to bring up a subset of globals and the nav-cache, in a test environment. I have made a few abortive attempts at exactly that but the sprawling nature of FGGlobals keeps defeating me.<br/>
<br/>
(The ability to run many tests efficiently was actually one of the smaller reasons for introducing the nav-cache, since without it any automated testing system would be horribly slow)
|{{cite web |url=http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/34113076/
|title=<nowiki>Re: [Flightgear-devel] Major problems with the AI traffic system</nowiki>
|author=<nowiki>James Turner</nowiki>
|date=<nowiki>2015-05-14</nowiki>
}}
}}
Obviously supporting a standalone 'fgcanvas' would be quite a small extension from those. I'm not worrying about dynamic dependencies or automatic subsystem creation for the moment - I expect the user / defaults to have defined a set of subsystems that work without crashing You're correct of course that Nasal has many assumptions about subsystems, but I think that can be improved incrementally on the Nasal side.
For the test mode, I really want to start Nasal-the-langauge very early, without loading all the modules in Nasal/ immediately. (Or maybe load a 'safe' subset). That's going to take some thought and I didn't get that far yet!<ref>{{cite web |url=http://wwwforum.flightgear.org/forums |title=incremental initialization of SGSubsystems|author=James Turner |date=Oct 01, 2012}}</ref>|James Turner}}  {{cquote|I'm working on a prototype of this - with no X11 / VLC required at all. It will load scenery tiles (for ground-intersections) but no views or rendering. But don't be in a rush for something to appear in Git, it's just an experiment.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/detail?id=882 |title=Issues 882 (Improved CI / regression testing support by providing options to disable interactive features (sound/window))|author=James Turner |date=Sep 26, 2012}}</ref>|James Turner}} {{FGCquote |A "headless" mode is a long-standing feature request, especially requested by developers and contributors who are hoping to do better/automated regression testing (valgrind, gdb, gprof). At the moment, it isn't directly possible - not without modifying the C++ source code and and rebuilding FG from source. You would basically have to change our OSG init code such that the window is not visible, note that you would still require OSG and X11 obviously, the window just wouldn't be shown - so that FG could be run from a console/shell |{{cite web |url=http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=179978#p179978 |title=<nowiki>Re: run without osg</nowiki> |author=<nowiki>Hooray</nowiki> |date=<nowiki>Sun Mar 24</nowiki> }}}} == Proof of concept (patch) =={{Note|This will not actually disable rendering, but merely hide the window by rendering to a pbuffer (FBO)}}The main camera is created in CameraGroup::buildCamera and a pbuffer is allocated when you set osg::GraphicContext::Traits.pbuffer to true. These traits are available in buildCamera because we set width and height there. For debugging purpose, you can add a line like<syntaxhighlight lang="cpp">window->gc->getTraits()->pbuffer=true;</syntaxhighlight>at the end of this function.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=179978#p179978 |title=<nowiki>Re: run without osg</nowiki> |author=<nowiki>FredB</nowiki> |date=<nowiki>Sun Mar 24</nowiki> }}</ref> <syntaxhighlight lang="diff">diff --git a/src/Main/options.cxx b/src/Main/options.cxxindex db5d84d..fb63dd1 100644--- a/src/Main/options.cxx+++ b/src/Main/options.cxx@@ -1797,6 +1797,7 @@ struct OptionDesc { {"prop", true, OPTION_FUNC | OPTION_MULTI, "", false, "", fgOptSetProperty}, {"load-tape", true, OPTION_FUNC, "", false, "", fgOptLoadTape }, {"developer", true, OPTION_IGNORE | OPTION_BOOL, "", false, "", nullptr },+ {"enable-headless", false, OPTION_BOOL, "/sim/startup/headless-mode", true, "",0 }, {0} }; diff --git a/src/Viewer/WindowBuilder.cxx b/src/Viewer/WindowBuilder.cxxindex f4d3c33..a1ffb84 100644--- a/src/Viewer/WindowBuilder.cxx+++ b/src/Viewer/WindowBuilder.cxx@@ -149,6 +149,12 @@ void WindowBuilder::makeDefaultTraits(bool stencil) SG_LOG(SG_VIEW,SG_DEBUG,"Using initial window size: " << w << " x " << h); } }+bool headless = fgGetBool("/sim/startup/headless-mode", false);+if (headless) {+ SG_LOG(SG_VIEW, SG_ALERT, "Headless view required: rendering window to pbuffer");+ traits->pbuffer = true;+} // enable headless+ } } // of namespace flightgear</syntaxhighlight>  For reference, to disable the window. It's the last thing before the return statement in WindowBuilder::makeDefaultTraits(bool stencil):<syntaxhighlight lang="cpp"> char* fg_gui = getenv("FG_GUI"); if (fg_gui != NULL && strcmp(fg_gui, "disabled") == 0) { printf ("danna_fg_gui: %s\n", fg_gui); traits->pbuffer = true; }</syntaxhighlight> just set an environment variable in my shell called FG_GUI and then this little hack works.<ref>{{cite web |url = https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=291699#p291699 |title = <nowiki> Re: Headless mode with access to property tree </nowiki> |author = <nowiki> alexklibisz </nowiki> |date = Aug 1st, 2016 |added = Aug 1st, 2016 |script_version = 0.40 }}</ref> <syntaxhighlight lang="bash">export FG_GUI=disabled</syntaxhighlight> == Status (07/2014) == {{Note|As of mid 2014, this is being worked on via [[Initializing Nasal early]], in part, this effort is also overlapping with the [[Reset & re-init]] and [[FlightGear Run Levels]] efforts.}}{{FGCquote|1= One could write automatic tests for FlightGear using the scripting and scenario support.|2= {{cite web | url = http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/15444457/ | title = <nowiki>Re: [Flightgear-devel] development process</nowiki> | author = <nowiki>Tim Moore</nowiki> | date = Jul 17th, 2007 | added = Jul 17th, 2007 | script_version = 0.23 }}}} {{FGCquote|1= I organised Simgear into 'core' and 'scene' libraries; the 'core' part is also what we call 'headless' simgear, i.e can be compiled without requiring OpenSceneGraph or any GUI systems. (Which is how SG is used by terragear and potentially some other users).|2= {{cite web | url = http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/29733462/ | title = <nowiki>[Flightgear-devel] SimGear libraries</nowiki> | author = <nowiki>James Turner</nowiki> | date = Aug 28th, 2012 }}}} {{cquote|I'm writing some automated testing code for pieces of FG, so that I can experiment with changes to various internal bits of code with more confidence that I haven't broken anything. These aren't quite unit-tests (they test multiple areas of the code at once) and they're pretty crude, but any testing is better than none (and quicker than manual testing).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg17543.html |title=Startup position offsets (fg_init)|author=James Turner |date=Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:53:58 -0700}}</ref>|James Turner}} {{cquote|<nowiki>I only need the graphical output for the real aircraft and want to disable the unnecessary graphical outputs (to reduce work load).</nowiki><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg40521.html|title=<nowiki>[Flightgear-devel] Disable grahpical output in flightgear / interface flightgear server instead of flightgear</nowiki>|author=<nowiki>Rahlf, Jonas (ext.)</nowiki>|date=<nowiki>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 04:42:48 -0700</nowiki>}}</ref>|<nowiki>Rahlf, Jonas (ext.)</nowiki>}} {{cquote|I'm interested in the capability of doing multiple builds with different versions, branches and options and in doing some kind of automated testing on the resulting builds<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg40416.html|title=<nowiki>Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG 2.12 RC Broken ?</nowiki>|author=Pat|date=Wed, 03 Jul 2013 17:24:19 -0700}}</ref>|Pat}} {{cquote|Make subsystems create-able and removable from commands. Only some subsystems are supported so far, since many have non-default constructors or other complexities. With this, change, it's possible to dynamically add and remove the traffic-manager at runtime, for example: <syntaxhighlight lang="nasal">fgcommand("add-subsystem", props.Node.new({ "subsystem": "traffic-manager", "name":"traffic-manager", "do-bind-init":1}));</syntaxhighlight><ref>{{cite web |url={{flightgear url|commit=8608a480736651999c5ea31a489343ee097ee915}} |title=Initial work on dynamic subsystem creation.|author=James Turner |date=Oct 01, 2012}}</ref>|James Turner}} {{cquote|could some thought be given to producing a benchmark suite for Flightgear. It would need to take in all of the, by now well known, variables - making it by no means a simple beast to manage.If this could be automated in some way it would be much easier to capture, and then submit, consistent data. <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg40294.html|title=<nowiki>[Flightgear-devel] Benchmark matrix</nowiki>|author=Alan Teeder|date=Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:15:42 -0700}}</ref>|Alan Teeder}} {{cquote|A scripted run would be an EXCELLENT tool.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg40295.html|title=<nowiki>Re: [Flightgear-devel] Benchmark matrix</nowiki>|author=geneb|date=Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:20:41 -0700}}</ref>|geneb}} {{cquote|Is there a way to do that "headless", without any graphic output? I wasn't being clear - I wanted to run *FlightGear* in a "headless" mode, not the browser.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/32259769/|title=<nowiki>Property documentation...</nowiki>|author=geneb|date=2014-04-23 14:22:57}}</ref>|geneb}} {{cquote|I don't think you can run FlightGear without a window. There used to be some property "draw-otw" that - if set - stops fg from rendering anything to the screen, but it still needs an opengl screen.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/32260799/|title=<nowiki>Property documentation...</nowiki>|author=TorstenD|date=2014-04-23 14:22:57}}</ref>|TorstenD}} {{FGCquote|1= I regularly test a rather small subset of FG features, i.e. never use MP or the replay system, no multi-monitor setup, no flights beyond ~90 minutes, no Rembrandt, no Basic Weather, rarely life weather,... so what we need to worry about most are use cases not covered by us|2= {{cite web | url = http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/34632894/ | title = <nowiki>Re: [Flightgear-devel] Some thoughts about the release process</nowiki> | author = <nowiki>Thorsten Renk</nowiki> | date = Nov 19th, 2015 }}}}
Also see, [[FlightGear Benchmark]]
<references/>
== Regression Testing in FlightGear ==
{{FGCquote
|1= the intel driver is more strict on these and throws errors when others are happily moving along, so that got me into thinking whether we could somehow wire the shader compiler into Jenkins to have these checked right away? Just like it's useful in catching compilation errors on windows and mac, that are less common architectures among the developers.
|2= {{cite web
| url = http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/34857657/
| title = <nowiki>Re: [Flightgear-devel] To Release or not?</nowiki>
| author = <nowiki>Tuomas Kuosmanen</nowiki>
| date = Feb 17th, 2016
| added = Feb 17th, 2016
| script_version = 0.25
}}
}}
 
While introducing unit tests and regression tests into the FlightGear project has been repeatedly brought up by several long-term contributors [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg12321.html] and core developers [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg11825.html], it isn't yet in wide or regular use in FlightGear, even though it is generally understood to be a worthwhile addition to FlightGear in order to do automated testing of individual features, for example when preparing releases [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg11832.html].
These obstacles in debugging such highly specific issues are also highlighted by core developers to severely limit the troubleshooting process
[http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg21664.html].
 
For a more recent discussion of regression testing and benchmarking, see [[FlightGear Benchmark]].
== Background ==
== Introducing Regression Tests to FlightGear ==
{{See also|Testing}}
 
{{FGCquote
|1= I am working on a comprehensive test suite for the flightgear codebase (simgear already has its own). I will present this later on, but only once I have fully functional Windows support. The design of this test suite will allow individual subsystems to be initialised in full isolation. It will allow for the standard subsystem methods (init, reinit, bind, unbind, update, etc.) to be called in any order in a highly repetitive manner. It is a little like Hooray's segfault paradise - the reinit.nas reset/re-init control panel [1] - in that it is great for fishing out a tonne of segfaults. I have used this for stabilising the FGPythonSys experiment [2]. This would really help with implementing the above design and making the OSG heavy subsystems fully independent.
|2= {{cite web
| url = http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/35048478/
| title = <nowiki>[Flightgear-devel] Integration of the new subsystem design and the
OSG scene graph management.</nowiki>
| author = <nowiki>Edward d'Auvergne</nowiki>
| date = Apr 28th, 2016
| added = Apr 28th, 2016
| script_version = 0.26
}}
}}
 
{{FGCquote
|1= Actually my thinking is along these lines - these are exactly the same types of changes I was thinking of for fully decoupling all the various parts of FlightGear for use in a CppUnit-based test suite ;) Something for the future though.
|2= {{cite web
| url = http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=277299#p277299
| title = <nowiki>Re: FGPython an propose for Python as an nasal alternative</nowiki>
| author = <nowiki>bugman</nowiki>
| date = Feb 23rd, 2016
| added = Feb 23rd, 2016
| script_version = 0.25
}}
}}
 
{{FGCquote
|1= Personally I would be reluctant to add a framework dependency (CppUnit / Google Test) unless the benefits are large and thus far I wasn’t convinced. The nasty macro-based tests are my hack and could / should be improved. Boost is a bit of a debating point in the project, I’d suggest to avoid it for tests again unless there is some massive benefit. Reflecting on this have written the above, if there was a common framework which could replace my hacks, but also avoid Boost, I’d personally be okay with that providing it’s an optional compile time requirement. Whatever the solution, it should be runnable via CTest, and if it generates output that Jenkins can parse, that would be fantastic. Non-Ctest compatible solutions would be possible but mean some build infrastructure changes.
|2= {{cite web
| url = http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/33628094/
| title = <nowiki>Re: [Flightgear-devel] SimGear/FlightGear Portability Patches</nowiki>
| author = <nowiki>James Turner</nowiki>
| date = Mar 23rd, 2015
| added = Mar 23rd, 2015
| script_version = 0.25
}}
}}
 
{{FGCquote
|Unit-testing for the FlightGear classes would be fantastic, but in general the ‘FGGlobals’ structure makes it hard. To unit-test most areas will mean a standard test harness which starts up a skeletal subsystem manager, the NavCache (for some classes, e.g. radio testing), and somehow makes an FGGlobals which works (maybe a mock one) but doesn’t require linking in 80% of the codebase. Any maintainable, not-too-intrusive idea on doing that is welcome!
|{{cite web |url=http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/33628094/
|title=<nowiki>Re: [Flightgear-devel] SimGear/FlightGear Portability Patches</nowiki>
|author=<nowiki>James Turner</nowiki>
|date=<nowiki>2015-03-23</nowiki>
}}
}}
 
{{FGCquote
|I've done some initial measurement to identify potential memory leaks in SimGear.
Detection was limited to execution of code covered by unit tests.
|{{cite web |url=http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/33630731/
|title=<nowiki>[Flightgear-devel] SimGear Memory Leaks</nowiki>
|author=<nowiki>xDraconian</nowiki>
|date=<nowiki>2015-03-24</nowiki>
}}
}}
The task of introducing regression tests isn't that easily achieved in FlightGear's case:
* debugging (running FlightGear non-interactively, without requiring user input)
* unit tests (e.g. to facilitate refactoring efforts)
* automated release preparations (e.g. to test individual subsystems but also complete aircraft, or even flights/flight plans)* benchmarking the whole system or individual subsystems{{Progressbar|60}}* feature-scaling by making some subsystems optional or better configurable
== Approach ==
The recent additions to the [[Autopilot]] and [[Route Manager]] systems in FlightGear also make it increasingly feasible to create completely scripted test flights for automatically doing certain portions of a flight without relying on user input.
 
{{FGCquote
| the most flexible approach would be using scripting - FligthGear has a built-in scripting language (called "Nasal"), that can be used to control aircraft, and even to instantiate multiple AI aircraft, one of the most straightforward examples is the "tanker.nas" script, which creates a fully scripted AI tanker - that could be easily extended to create dozens of tankers, and obviously you could also change the 3D model if you wanted to. In fact, we have a separate addon, named "bombable" that adds "AI bots" to the simulator, for dogfighting purposes - none of that required C++ changes, it's all done in scripting space. Another users implemented a fully scripted missile (fox2.nas) that tracks aircraft
|{{cite web |url=http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=189488#p189488
|title=<nowiki>Re: Suitability of this software to run a swarm simulation</nowiki>
|author=<nowiki>Hooray</nowiki>
|date=<nowiki>Wed Aug 28</nowiki>
}}
}}
{{FGCquote
|Curt did that a while back for the f14b, which did a fully automated carrier approach using just Nasal scripting:
* http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/uas-search-and-rescue-demo-simulation
* http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg33987.html
* http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f{{=}}4&amp;t{{=}}13615
{{#ev:youtube|cvbtSG9cy20}}
|{{cite web |url=http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=176169&sid=bc24534a101c0e4349ee42eb1e9476a3#p176169
|title=<nowiki>Re: Possibility to run a fully automatized mission ?</nowiki>
|author=<nowiki>Hooray</nowiki>
|date=<nowiki>Mon Feb 04</nowiki>
}}
}}
== Milestones ==
* allow FlightGear to be run without creating a visible GUI window, i.e. in "headless" mode, using a --headless parameter{{Done}}* allow FlightGear to be optionally compiled and run without any sound support/dependencies (OpenAL), as of 07/2010 there is a --disable-sound option available, which however still requires OpenAL for compilation.{{Done}}* allow replay buffers to be saved to a file in order to be replayed for automated test/demo flights, so that users can share saved replay buffers when reporting a bug{{Done}} (supported via the flight recorder subsystem)* allow arbitrary user inputs to be simulated via property tree modifications (pretty much possible already){{Done}}* allow individual subsystems to be enabled/disabled dynamically (via properties), so that profiling and debugging can be restricted to specific usage scenarios and components{{Progressbar|30}}
* [[Howto:Extending Nasal|extend the Nasal API]] in order to facilitate "remote controlling" the simulator largely using scripts
== Related ==
* http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg02181.html
* http://forum.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=19502&p=179978&hilit=#p179968
* https://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/detail?id=882
* {{flightgear commit|af6611d7f61a6d993ce94fa6efade0b4485eb7a5}}
 
== Devel List ==
* http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg40521.html
* http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg29510.html
* http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg29907.html
* http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg02028.html
 
== References ==
{{Appendix}}
[[Category:Core development projects]]
18,174
edits

Navigation menu