RE: [certi-dev] FlightGear FOM

[Gotthard, Petr]

Hi Martin,

My primary goal is an open-source, extensible solution for
interoperability between various simulators, including Microsoft Flight
Simulator or X-Plane. Unlike the native FlightGear multiplayer it should
be interoperable with other simulators and unlike the IVAO network it
should be based on existing standards and open for proprietary
interfaces to simplify integration with new (yet unknown) modules. This
makes the HLA interface different to the existing protocols and
justifies my effort.

I know the FlightGear models have many cool features and it's not so
difficult to implement a FOM to transmit relevant properties. But unless
the other flight simulators support same/similar features such solution
would not be interoperable, what was the primary goal. Maximal details
with no interoperability are provided by the native multiplayer.

As a first step I thus want to focus on a basic interoperability between
the 3 major flight simulators (FGFS, MS FSX, X-Plane) based on the plain
RPR/ASN. During this activity we should analyze what details are
available in different simulators and later suggest the FOM extensions
that suits all three simulators. This way we may reach the maximal
interoperability and avoid developing yet another FlightGear
multiplayer.

Volunteers? ;-)


Regards,
Petr

-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden On
Behalf Of Martin Spott
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 2:31 PM
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [certi-dev] FlightGear simulation latency

Hi Petr,

"Gotthard, Petr" wrote:

>> BTW, just for the sake of completeness, I understand that the RPR FOM
>> very well allows to represent flaps or landing gear and lots of other
>> stuff as an articulated part of an (aircraft) object - I think this
is
>> a DIS heritage. Did I miss anything relevant ?
> 
> Isn't that too complex? I'd prefer to just add a proprietary "on/off"
> parameter like in ASN FOM. The level of standard compliancy would be
the
> same.

Well, in general - which means: as long as I don't have to do the work
myself  ;-)  - I'd always be in favour of complying with existing
standards wherever it's possible. Thus, if the RPR FOM allows to
represent flap movement then I'd say it's the way to go.
On the other hand, there are sooo many details in FlightGear which are
worth getting shown in a MultiPlayer environment but which are in no
way covered by the RPR FOM, that it finally doesn't make a huge
difference because almost every FOM (at minimum ASN and RPR) would
require some extension in order to cover all these features.

Just one example: RPR provides a single value to deal with retractable
landing gear (as an articulated part). Flightgear, in contrast, allows
to simulate each gear individually. Some aircraft even simulate landing
gear failures which allow an instructor (on a remote console) to let
the left main gear hang in a partially extended position.

I know that covering these details is very distant from the primary
focus of your VirtualAir project (you're mostly aiming at traffic
simulation in controlled airspace, don't you?), but if CERTI/VirtualAir
were to substitute or at least serve as an alternative to the current
native MultiPlayer network (in fact it's currently just a grid of
braindead packet-relays), then it doesn't make a large difference which
FOM is being taken as a foundation.

It might be interesting to find out how the various commercial HLA
plug-in's for Microsoft Flight Simulator and/or X-Plane chose to deal
with this topic ....

Best regards,
        Martin.