Virtual ATC Discussion: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
(Switch to the {{forum url}} and {{forum link}} templates for all forum links.) |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
<div id{{=}}"video"><iframe width{{=}}"420" height{{=}}"315" src{{=}}"http://www.youtube.com/embed/auj_eA-dTTs" frameborder{{=}}"0" allowfullscreen{{=}}""></iframe></div> | <div id{{=}}"video"><iframe width{{=}}"420" height{{=}}"315" src{{=}}"http://www.youtube.com/embed/auj_eA-dTTs" frameborder{{=}}"0" allowfullscreen{{=}}""></iframe></div> | ||
|{{cite web |url= | |{{cite web |url={{forum url|p=179643}} | ||
|title=<nowiki>Virtual Air Traffic Organization (vATO)</nowiki> | |title=<nowiki>Virtual Air Traffic Organization (vATO)</nowiki> | ||
|author=<nowiki>Omega</nowiki> | |author=<nowiki>Omega</nowiki> | ||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
"'''OATCONS'''" ('''O'''pensource '''A'''ir '''T'''raffic '''CO'''ntrol '''N'''etwork for Nonproprietory '''S'''imulators).<br/> | "'''OATCONS'''" ('''O'''pensource '''A'''ir '''T'''raffic '''CO'''ntrol '''N'''etwork for Nonproprietory '''S'''imulators).<br/> | ||
Please tell me if this seems good or if it needs improvement. | Please tell me if this seems good or if it needs improvement. | ||
|{{cite web |url= | |{{cite web |url={{forum url|p=65509}} | ||
|title=<nowiki>FlightGear's VATSIM: The OATCONS Concept</nowiki> | |title=<nowiki>FlightGear's VATSIM: The OATCONS Concept</nowiki> | ||
|author=<nowiki>kyokoyama</nowiki> | |author=<nowiki>kyokoyama</nowiki> | ||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
That is a lot less effort than starting from scratch and re-inventing the wheel. Plus, you're much more likely to get the developers of existing applications who already have the required skills to make enhancements than find completely new developers. | That is a lot less effort than starting from scratch and re-inventing the wheel. Plus, you're much more likely to get the developers of existing applications who already have the required skills to make enhancements than find completely new developers. | ||
|{{cite web |url= | |{{cite web |url={{forum url|p=65534}} | ||
|title=<nowiki>Re: FlightGear's VATSIM: The OATCONS Concept</nowiki> | |title=<nowiki>Re: FlightGear's VATSIM: The OATCONS Concept</nowiki> | ||
|author=<nowiki>stuart</nowiki> | |author=<nowiki>stuart</nowiki> | ||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
And just a couple of hours ago, someone posted to the original VATSIM thread introducing his own new project of integrating FG and VATSIM. | And just a couple of hours ago, someone posted to the original VATSIM thread introducing his own new project of integrating FG and VATSIM. | ||
|{{cite web |url= | |{{cite web |url={{forum url|p=66464}} | ||
|title=<nowiki>Re: FlightGear's VATSIM: The OATCONS Concept</nowiki> | |title=<nowiki>Re: FlightGear's VATSIM: The OATCONS Concept</nowiki> | ||
|author=<nowiki>Hooray</nowiki> | |author=<nowiki>Hooray</nowiki> | ||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
But as long as everybody is inclined to start his/her own project from scratch, this really isn't going anywhere. | But as long as everybody is inclined to start his/her own project from scratch, this really isn't going anywhere. | ||
|{{cite web |url= | |{{cite web |url={{forum url|p=70010}} | ||
|title=<nowiki>Re: FlightGear's VATSIM: The OATCONS Concept</nowiki> | |title=<nowiki>Re: FlightGear's VATSIM: The OATCONS Concept</nowiki> | ||
|author=<nowiki>Hooray</nowiki> | |author=<nowiki>Hooray</nowiki> | ||
Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
We created the ATC page a while ago to help coordinate all things related to ATC (VATSIM, IVAO etc)<br/> | We created the ATC page a while ago to help coordinate all things related to ATC (VATSIM, IVAO etc)<br/> | ||
In the meanwhile it has turned into a pretty huge collection of random ideas more or less related to ATC. | In the meanwhile it has turned into a pretty huge collection of random ideas more or less related to ATC. | ||
|{{cite web |url= | |{{cite web |url={{forum url|p=116938}} | ||
|title=<nowiki>Re: [Masterproject AI] First Draft Specification</nowiki> | |title=<nowiki>Re: [Masterproject AI] First Draft Specification</nowiki> | ||
|author=<nowiki>Hooray</nowiki> | |author=<nowiki>Hooray</nowiki> | ||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
|there are typically a handful of VATSIM/IVAO related "efforts" (discussions) per year. Most of these take up weeks discussing things, with very little (usually nothing at all) materializing ultimately. Usually, people are either no experts in VATSIM/IVAO or simply not familiar with FG internals. There are some very real restrictions on the FG side of things, especially related to our MP infrastructure (fgms/MP protocol) but also licensing. None of this is impossible to solve, but it takes time for very little gain - if we suddenly had VATSIM/IVAO support, our MP system would become more popular, which it is not designed for. Personally, I consider it much more likely/worthwhile to support VATSIM et al once HLA is fully supported and used to modernize/re-implement our MP system.<br/> | |there are typically a handful of VATSIM/IVAO related "efforts" (discussions) per year. Most of these take up weeks discussing things, with very little (usually nothing at all) materializing ultimately. Usually, people are either no experts in VATSIM/IVAO or simply not familiar with FG internals. There are some very real restrictions on the FG side of things, especially related to our MP infrastructure (fgms/MP protocol) but also licensing. None of this is impossible to solve, but it takes time for very little gain - if we suddenly had VATSIM/IVAO support, our MP system would become more popular, which it is not designed for. Personally, I consider it much more likely/worthwhile to support VATSIM et al once HLA is fully supported and used to modernize/re-implement our MP system.<br/> | ||
|{{cite web |url= | |{{cite web |url={{forum url|p=207982}} | ||
|title=<nowiki>Re: Flightgear and vatsim</nowiki> | |title=<nowiki>Re: Flightgear and vatsim</nowiki> | ||
|author=<nowiki>Hooray</nowiki> | |author=<nowiki>Hooray</nowiki> | ||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
Mostly, FlightGear is an extremely inconsistent piece of software with many features being either partially re-invented in other places, or even completely incompatible. Things like the MP protocol or the native/controls protocols, but also the generic protocols system, are basically solving the same underlying problem but were never unified, so have some great ideas and concepts that are usually incompatible still.<br/> | Mostly, FlightGear is an extremely inconsistent piece of software with many features being either partially re-invented in other places, or even completely incompatible. Things like the MP protocol or the native/controls protocols, but also the generic protocols system, are basically solving the same underlying problem but were never unified, so have some great ideas and concepts that are usually incompatible still.<br/> | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
Anybody looking at implementing VATSIM/IVAO support should be aware of such restrictions in the first place, and be aware of who they're talking to, because we have an increasing number of ''' | Anybody looking at implementing VATSIM/IVAO support should be aware of such restrictions in the first place, and be aware of who they're talking to, because we have an increasing number of '''{{forum link|p=207799|text=users}}''' trying to contribute to development discussions that are way beyond their expertise, which is adding to the confusion obviously. Stilll, they're the ones responding to certain threads and providing feedback, which is misrepresenting that state of support from fellow developers. | ||
|{{cite web |url= | |{{cite web |url={{forum url|p=207982}} | ||
|title=<nowiki>Re: Flightgear and vatsim</nowiki> | |title=<nowiki>Re: Flightgear and vatsim</nowiki> | ||
|author=<nowiki>Hooray</nowiki> | |author=<nowiki>Hooray</nowiki> | ||
Line 129: | Line 129: | ||
{{FGCquote | {{FGCquote | ||
|There's areas in FG development where it doesn't make much sense TECHNICALLY to build on existing stuff any longer, i.e. stuff that needs to be yanked sooner or later, and that is even already in the process of being yanked by some of the most experienced core developers, the multiplayer system certainly qualifies as such a component, and all developers who are aware of this, are extremely hesitant to extend, or even just maintain, such components. <br/> | |There's areas in FG development where it doesn't make much sense TECHNICALLY to build on existing stuff any longer, i.e. stuff that needs to be yanked sooner or later, and that is even already in the process of being yanked by some of the most experienced core developers, the multiplayer system certainly qualifies as such a component, and all developers who are aware of this, are extremely hesitant to extend, or even just maintain, such components. <br/> | ||
Thus, unlike suggested | Thus, unlike suggested {{forum link|p=207799|text=elsewhere}}, this is not primarily a matter of someone coming along with the right "skills" to "fix MP", it's mainly a matter of consistently addressing our requirements in a generic fashion, not just MP centric.<br/> | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
We used to have roughly 2-3 discussions per year about ripping out the FlightGear GUI (PUI), but since the adoption of Canvas that discussion has stopped completely, for a good reason.<br/> | We used to have roughly 2-3 discussions per year about ripping out the FlightGear GUI (PUI), but since the adoption of Canvas that discussion has stopped completely, for a good reason.<br/> | ||
There's only so much that can be accomplished by extending mediocre technology, such as PUI, without causing lots of work, but also a ton of incompatibilites - preparing FG to get rid of PUI was the right decision, still it's taken many years, and we're still not quite there yet. We went through the same thing when PLIB SG was replaced with OSG, which ended up causing frustration, because certain features (shadows) would no longer work properly - still, it was the right decision. So waiting is not such a bad thing overall. | There's only so much that can be accomplished by extending mediocre technology, such as PUI, without causing lots of work, but also a ton of incompatibilites - preparing FG to get rid of PUI was the right decision, still it's taken many years, and we're still not quite there yet. We went through the same thing when PLIB SG was replaced with OSG, which ended up causing frustration, because certain features (shadows) would no longer work properly - still, it was the right decision. So waiting is not such a bad thing overall. | ||
|{{cite web |url= | |{{cite web |url={{forum url|p=207982}} | ||
|title=<nowiki>Re: Flightgear and vatsim</nowiki> | |title=<nowiki>Re: Flightgear and vatsim</nowiki> | ||
|author=<nowiki>Hooray</nowiki> | |author=<nowiki>Hooray</nowiki> | ||
Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
my alpha project of proxy beetwen IVAO and FG. <br/> | my alpha project of proxy beetwen IVAO and FG. <br/> | ||
It`s changed source of squawkgear | It`s changed source of squawkgear | ||
|{{cite web |url= | |{{cite web |url={{forum url|p=112499}} | ||
|title=<nowiki> and FG</nowiki> | |title=<nowiki> and FG</nowiki> | ||
|author=<nowiki>Sau</nowiki> | |author=<nowiki>Sau</nowiki> | ||
Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
I also thought about starting a new client in C++, perhaps reusing code from OpenRadar (which I don't know).<br/> | I also thought about starting a new client in C++, perhaps reusing code from OpenRadar (which I don't know).<br/> | ||
|{{cite web |url= | |{{cite web |url={{forum url|p=103926}} | ||
|title=<nowiki>Re: ATC client for Flightgear</nowiki> | |title=<nowiki>Re: ATC client for Flightgear</nowiki> | ||
|author=<nowiki>pepribal</nowiki> | |author=<nowiki>pepribal</nowiki> | ||
Line 174: | Line 174: | ||
{{FGCquote | {{FGCquote | ||
|There were several people thinking about vatsim and FlightGear. The problem is, taht there are some licence issues. We need a protocol for using the vatsim-network. Vatsim would offer one - but only when it is "closed" means not under GNU GPL-Licence. That's the problem ... | |There were several people thinking about vatsim and FlightGear. The problem is, taht there are some licence issues. We need a protocol for using the vatsim-network. Vatsim would offer one - but only when it is "closed" means not under GNU GPL-Licence. That's the problem ... | ||
|{{cite web |url= | |{{cite web |url={{forum url|p=2324}} | ||
|title=<nowiki></nowiki> | |title=<nowiki></nowiki> | ||
|author=<nowiki>HHS</nowiki> | |author=<nowiki>HHS</nowiki> | ||
|date=<nowiki>Fri Oct 19</nowiki> | |date=<nowiki>Fri Oct 19</nowiki> | ||
}} | |||
}} | |||
{{FGCquote | |||
|I'm in the process of launching a new online network that provides traffic and ATC for a wide range of simulators, from X-Plane/FS9/FSX users in a home setting, to pilots using mid-range training devices at a flight school, all the way up to Level D full motion simulators at high end sim centers or even airline training departments.<br/> | |||
<br/> | |||
Multiplayer networks with ATC are certainly not a new concept. I'm sure everyone knows about VATSIM/IVAO at this point. There are no networks, however, that cater to commercial flight training organizations, or even to student pilots and instrument students. That is the market which this network aims to serve. Additionally, I have strong evidence that there are a reasonable number of sim enthusiasts on various multiplayer networks who would be interested in participating on a subscription-based network with the promise of guaranteed ATC presence, quality, as well as a host of technical features that are simply not found on other networks.<br/> | |||
<br/> | |||
We have completed development of the initial client for X-Plane and are nearly finished with the initial FS9/X release. I'm contemplating adding a FG client, but I know so little about the community in terms of the raw numbers of pilots that use it, or the likely level of interest that it will generate. | |||
|{{cite web |url={{forum url|p=126262}} | |||
|title=<nowiki>interest in a client for a commercial MP network?</nowiki> | |||
|author=<nowiki>coma</nowiki> | |||
|date=<nowiki>Fri Jun 03</nowiki> | |||
}} | |||
}} | |||
{{FGCquote | |||
|It's come to my attention that, while SquawkGear is cross-platform, to use SB747, you MUST have Windows. Well, I'd like to fix that. In fact, I may or may not cut out SquawkGear completely. I'd like to create a brand new VATSIM client for FG using Java.<br/> | |||
<br/> | |||
So far, anything I've wanted to make in Java for FG has worked, so, I see no reason to NOT try this for a new project. I do realize that the Instructor Station (a program that does little more than connect to FG and display its properties in its own GUI), and FGFSCopilot (a program that connects to FG and manipulates its properties to further automate flying a great deal) will be incomparable to this. However, a few months ago, after some research, I have managed a program (at the time MIA-exclusive, but now too outdated for any practical use) that connects to FG, grabs and stores properties for use with calculations, and then uploads the variables to a website. So, I think I may have already cleared the biggest hurdle for this.<br/> | |||
<br/> | |||
My understanding of what a VATSIM client does, in most simple terms, would be the following: Connect to network>gather FG data> broadcast FG data>receive VATSIM data>adjust FG based on VATSIM data (e.g. load up AI aircraft where other VATSIM pilots are located, override FG's real weather with VATSIM's real weather, etc.). Of course, I am leaving out a lot of details, such as allowing the pilot to fill out a FP sheet and file it, look up freqs of nearby ATCs, adjust the transponder, etc. | |||
|{{cite web |url={{forum url|p=147924}} | |||
|title=<nowiki>Cross-platform </nowiki> | |||
|author=<nowiki>redneck</nowiki> | |||
|date=<nowiki>Wed Jan 18</nowiki> | |||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} |
Latest revision as of 13:09, 6 June 2019
Work in progress This article or section will be worked on in the upcoming hours or days. See history for the latest developments. |
VATO FlightGear
Virtual Air Traffic Organization also known as vATO is a virtual organization in FlightGear Flight Simulator that promotes realism in event based operations currently within Europe and North America.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/auj_eA-dTTs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
|
OATCONS
Development
There have been LOTS of discussions in the past about improving the AI/ATC system in FG.
— Hooray (Sat Mar 05). Re: [Masterproject AI] First Draft Specification.
(powered by Instant-Cquotes) |
VATSIM/IVAO Support
There are a lot of people here who have a ton of ideas on MP, without really understanding how it works, and why extending it in its current form would not be a good idea - our MP system is one of those components that will greatly benefit from being re-implemented sooner or later. Discussing this with non-developers is kinda pointless however. HLA is the right technology here, as it also handles multi-instance state synchronization/replication, i.e. for distributed setups, or even just professional multi-machine setups.
|
There's areas in FG development where it doesn't make much sense TECHNICALLY to build on existing stuff any longer, i.e. stuff that needs to be yanked sooner or later, and that is even already in the process of being yanked by some of the most experienced core developers, the multiplayer system certainly qualifies as such a component, and all developers who are aware of this, are extremely hesitant to extend, or even just maintain, such components. Thus, unlike suggested elsewhere , this is not primarily a matter of someone coming along with the right "skills" to "fix MP", it's mainly a matter of consistently addressing our requirements in a generic fashion, not just MP centric. |
Efforts
For some reason i`had stopped at summer of 2010 my project of IVAO client. I thinked, that IVAO finished they library, but... |
I'm in the process of launching a new online network that provides traffic and ATC for a wide range of simulators, from X-Plane/FS9/FSX users in a home setting, to pilots using mid-range training devices at a flight school, all the way up to Level D full motion simulators at high end sim centers or even airline training departments.
— coma (Fri Jun 03). interest in a client for a commercial MP network?.
(powered by Instant-Cquotes) |