20,741
edits
Status of AI in FlightGear: Difference between revisions
→AI Scenarios vs. Scripting
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
{{FGCquote | {{FGCquote | ||
| have to agree completely with Thorsten here. Scripting via Nasal makes it possible to move development of such features to the base package and delegate it to "user space" (contributors not core developers). <br/> | | I have to agree completely with Thorsten here. Scripting via Nasal makes it possible to move development of such features to the base package and delegate it to "user space" (contributors not core developers). <br/> | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
So that core developers can focus on writing C++ core. Just look at examples like tanker.nas, fox2.nas, [url]Curt's fully autonomous f14 demo[/url] or flug's bombable addon: They '''all''' use Durk's AI traffic system as their backbone and foundation, but they provide totally different and novel features on top of it. <br/> | So that core developers can focus on writing C++ core. Just look at examples like tanker.nas, fox2.nas, [url]Curt's fully autonomous f14 demo[/url] or flug's bombable addon: They '''all''' use Durk's AI traffic system as their backbone and foundation, but they provide totally different and novel features on top of it. <br/> | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
|author=<nowiki>Hooray</nowiki> | |author=<nowiki>Hooray</nowiki> | ||
|date=<nowiki>Fri Feb 08</nowiki> | |date=<nowiki>Fri Feb 08</nowiki> | ||
}} | |||
}} | |||
{{FGCquote | |||
|The AI system itself is not all that flexible, but the various scripted approaches (tanker.nas, bombable etc) do use it as the backend for placing traffic, even though all the control logic is then handled in scripting space. | |||
|{{cite web |url=http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=189562#p189562 | |||
|title=<nowiki>Re: Suitability of this software to run a swarm simulation</nowiki> | |||
|author=<nowiki>Hooray</nowiki> | |||
|date=<nowiki>Thu Aug 29</nowiki> | |||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||