Proposals:Architecture related

From FlightGear wiki
Revision as of 09:35, 29 October 2009 by MILSTD (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is a stub. You can help the wiki by expanding it.

This is meant to become a summarized list of all feature requests/suggestions related to improving FlightGear's architecture, it is largely based on Feature Requests / Proposals / Ideas (where all related items were deleted) and may not be up to date with the most recent developments in CVS, your help in updating and maintaining this list is appreciated!

  • Meanwhile, FlightGear has become a pretty monolothic piece of software, in the long run it would be desirable if the code could become somewhat more modularized and structured, eventually this should also make it easier for new contributors to get started.
  • basically all subsystems should be fully "suspend-able" and "reinit-able" at runtime, there are currently various subsystems that will consume CPU cycles even though they are not in fact necessarily required, affecting FlightGear's performance negatively. This is particularly the case for non-SGSubsystem based systems.
  • eventually, it may become desirable to add unit testing support to those FlightGear subsystems/components that can be considered stable and that are thus unlikely to change significantly anytime soon, that way it should become much easier to track development problems early.
  • More and more often, users of other flight simulators with lacking scenery support (such as Aerowinx Precision Sim) would like to use FlightGear in conjunction with their commercial simulator in order to create a FlightGear-based visual scenery representation. To some extent this works already quite well due to the possibility to provide an external/null FDM. However it is not uncommon to see more or less significant differences in the underlying databases (navaids, terrain, airports/runways),so that for example, navaids in other simulators do not match the positions in FlightGear and vice versa. Likewise, for airports and runways. Currently, the only workaround is to manually hardcode corresponding offsets in order to compensate for this. However, in the long run it would be nice if there was a standardized mechanism in FlightGear to automatically align databases for navaids, airports, runways, terran and possibly also important scenery objects (landmarks). This could probably be based on a mechanism to allow other simulators to request/send positional information for a navaid, airport/runway so that FlightGear could automatically compensate for differences by auto-aligning the corresponding coordinates at runtime. Preferably, something like this would be exposed via a network interface (i.e. telnet) so that it would become very straight forward to interface with FlightGear. In the long run, such a facility would also make it possible to use different sets of underlying data in FlightGear easily. [1]