20,741
edits
Red Leader (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
m (decoupling components as per FG systems: fdm, autopilot and route-manager (guidance)) |
||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
I think that we should instead call this the "AI guided weapons system" or "AI guided munitions." After all, we aren't just talking about missile, we're also talking about guided bombs. The same system can and should be used for both. That's what I think anyway. | I think that we should instead call this the "AI guided weapons system" or "AI guided munitions." After all, we aren't just talking about missile, we're also talking about guided bombs. The same system can and should be used for both. That's what I think anyway. | ||
[[User:Red_Leader|Red Leader]] ([[User_talk:Red_Leader|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Red_Leader|contribs]]) 19:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | [[User:Red_Leader|Red Leader]] ([[User_talk:Red_Leader|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Red_Leader|contribs]]) 19:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
: From a functional standpoint, I would suggest to look at the way FlightGear's subsystems are divided into distinct components and then simply model this code accordingly by introducing helper classes for components like 1) the FDM, 2) the autopilot, 3) the "route managerh". That way, a guidance system would simply implement the route manager system's interface. As I stated elsewhere, it would make a lot of sense to maintain parity with the property tree-level FDM/AP and RM systems. Primarily, this will ensure consistency - secondly, it will ensure that future updates would provide a sane migration path, i.e. for using C++ level hooks that are currently not exposed to scripting space - we do have a number of contributors who tinkered with supporting multiple instances of the FDM/AP and RM subsystems - in fact, the AP system already supports multiple instances (see the property-rules system). And multiple FDM instances can also be supported for JSBSim FDMs - the route manager (RM) seems to be not sufficiently generic, but Durk and Zakalawe have repeatedly stated being interested in generalizing this part, too[http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=134970#p134970]. Which basically means that there will be less repetitive/integration work necessary if/once those changes should materialize at some point. Thus, it would be a good idea not to re-invent the wheel entirely in scripting space - there's useful existing C++ code for these things (FDM, AP, RM), and exposing things to scripting space using [[Nasal/CppBind]] also has never been so easy. The other benefit is obviously that people will intuitively know how to deal with scripted AI objects because the property tree interfaces would be closely modeled after existing conventions.--[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] ([[User talk:Hooray|talk]]) 13:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||