20,741
edits
Advanced weather: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Connection with the multiplayer system
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
(should be written by someone who knows what the multiplayer system can and cannot do) | (should be written by someone who knows what the multiplayer system can and cannot do) | ||
--> | --> | ||
{{Note| | |||
It would seem useful to get Richard into the boat, because (once again) [[Emesary]] seems kind of ideal for the required communication.<ref>{{cite web | |||
|url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/35609551/ | |||
|title = <nowiki> Re: [Flightgear-devel] Traffic 2020: Towards a new Development | |||
Model for FlightGear AI Traffic </nowiki> | |||
|author = <nowiki> Thorsten Renk </nowiki> | |||
|date = Jan 17th, 2017 | |||
|added = Jan 17th, 2017 | |||
|script_version = 0.40 | |||
}}</ref> | |||
}} | |||
This is a feature that could have been there at least four years ago. AW is nearly made for efficient sync over MP, because once you give it a dedicated random number generator, all you need to send is tile coordinates, a handful of meta-data variables and a random seed, and it'll get identical weather across multiple instances. No need to send thousands of cloud positions (which never shares the thermals anyway) - you can get the whole tile structure identical for hardly any transmission cost. All it really takes is someone who cares about multi-instance sync and has some Nasal experience to get up and code it. It's probably less than 300 lines of code added to the AW tile manager. But we're moving in circles - every six months someone remarks it'd be nice to have, Thorsten writes how it can be accomplished but that since he is neither interested in MP nor have an MP test setup won't do it himmself (you don't seriously expect him to develop something he can't test? himself), Thorsten offers his help with the AW internals to everyone who wants to have a go - and nothing happens, we repeat the exercise half a year later. So the offer still stands - Thorsten believes synchronizing AW over MP is not very difficult, and he'll help with the task, but it has to be done by someone who has a setup to actually test it. <ref>{{cite web | |||
|url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/35595674/ | |||
|title = <nowiki> Re: [Flightgear-devel] Traffic 2020: Towards a new Development | |||
Model for FlightGear AI Traffic </nowiki> | |||
|author = <nowiki> Thorsten Renk </nowiki> | |||
|date = Jan 10th, 2017 | |||
|added = Jan 10th, 2017 | |||
|script_version = 0.40 | |||
}}</ref> | |||
We have two weather systems that work aircraft-centered, butero which work server-centered - what's the smaller task - creating a p2p design to transmit a comparatively small amount of info, or write a server-based weather system from scratch?<ref>{{cite web | We have two weather systems that work aircraft-centered, butero which work server-centered - what's the smaller task - creating a p2p design to transmit a comparatively small amount of info, or write a server-based weather system from scratch?<ref>{{cite web | ||