2,561
edits
FlightGear Headless: Difference between revisions
m
→Approach
m (→Approach) |
|||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
In fact, the major obstacle really limiting FlightGear to be used by automated/scripted tests is its reliance on having a graphical output window available and opened. | In fact, the major obstacle really limiting FlightGear to be used by automated/scripted tests is its reliance on having a graphical output window available and opened. | ||
If FlightGear provided an option to be run in non-interactive/headless mode, so that it wouldn't necessarily create | If FlightGear provided an option to be run in non-interactive/headless mode, so that it wouldn't necessarily create a visible output window but could just run silently in a shell environment, it could already be easily used by shell scripts to do simple things such as for example profiling the fgfs process while running a specific Nasal script non-interactively and automatically terminating afterwards. | ||
It's worth pointing out that this is indeed already possible: Nasal scripts can terminate the simulator by invoking an fgcommand, so this really isn't that much off the table and would facilitate scenarios where Nasal scripts may run certain test suites and automatically report status back to the caller (shell script). So, this would be just one scenario for running fgfs non-interactively in order to profile the Nasal interpreter. | It's worth pointing out that this is indeed already possible: Nasal scripts can terminate the simulator by invoking an fgcommand, so this really isn't that much off the table and would facilitate scenarios where Nasal scripts may run certain test suites and automatically report status back to the caller (shell script). So, this would be just one scenario for running fgfs non-interactively in order to profile the Nasal interpreter. | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
Also, FlightGear's reliance on user input via means such as the mouse/keyboard and other hardware peripherals doesn't really pose a real problem, because all of these inputs are already internally handled by a combination of XML and scripting, so that emulating arbitrary user input by making use of scripts or by automatically writing to the property tree via network sockets is fairly straightforward and could also be accomplished by running shell scripts, that may for example invoke "netcat" specifically for this purpose. | Also, FlightGear's reliance on user input via means such as the mouse/keyboard and other hardware peripherals doesn't really pose a real problem, because all of these inputs are already internally handled by a combination of XML and scripting, so that emulating arbitrary user input by making use of scripts or by automatically writing to the property tree via network sockets is fairly straightforward and could also be accomplished by running shell scripts, that may for example invoke "netcat" specifically for this purpose. | ||
The recent additions to the [[Autopilot]] and [[Route Manager]] systems in FlightGear also make it increasingly feasible to created completely scripted test flights for automatically doing certain portions of a flight without relying on user input. | |||
== Milestones == | == Milestones == | ||