Board index FlightGear Multiplayer events

EDDF-Triangle

Virtual fly-ins, fun flies, competitions, and other group events. Find out details of upcoming events, register for competitions, or organize your own tour of a favorite location.

Re: EDDF-Triangle

Postby jomo » Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:15 am

wkitty42 wrote in Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:03 am:the main thing is to also ensure folks are using the same MP protocol version as well as having the same craft installed

Do you have any idea how you force every FGFS user switching to new versions at the same time worldwide?
Would you not agree that it would be better if model-designers take care to support old and new versions?
(like tdammers proved to be possible! and basic design-rules worldwide in reality and simulators!)
??
jomo / ATCjomo + EDDFjo1 + EDDFjo2
ATC at EDDF Fr,Sa,Su,We from 20:00 to 24:00 CET/MEZ., see http://www.emmerich-j.de
User avatar
jomo
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: Mainz, Germany
Callsign: jomo jomoATC
OS: UBUNTU 18.4

Re: EDDF-Triangle

Postby wkitty42 » Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:13 am

who said anything about forcing anyone to do anything? i surely did not... if they want to stay with old versions, that's their choice and problem... they have no platform to stand on and complain... especially if things like the MP protocol change...

on supporting old and new versions, in some cases, yes, i would agree... but in general, not really... for example, i'm a member of a communications network that has been around since the early '80s... the network still uses plain ASCII text and a lot of folks are complaining that they can't do thing in that network like they can on the internet... we don't care... if they want the internet, go to the internet... if they want straight talk and easy reading, stick with our network... no pictures, no ads, no colors... just plain simple text...

for another example, i use flightgear and build the latest code in the "next" branch all the time... it is better for FG to advance and leave that old stuff in the dirt because of the problems it has... consider fgcom... people don't like it, they won't use it, and they complain about it BUT none of them has done anything to try to help get it fixed so it will not ever get fixed... it works fine for those who developed it... the MP protocol has gotten better... FGCom can also get better... FG has gotten better... some craft have gotten better... so is it best to move forward and use the better stuff or stay behind and whine and complain about the problems that have already been fixed??

so, yes and no... i used to write upgrade code that updated binary configuration files when new versions of programs were released... i realized, one day, that the upgrade code was as large or larger than the actual app code... each version could update from the very first version to the latest... that was like 30 different binary file formats... i even grew to expect such upgrade capabilities from other programs... it was one of the big features, this upgrade thing... everyone loved it because they didn't lose anything... until the big crash of '95 when there was a hard drive crash, unverified and failed backups and an almost total loss of the program's code... we didn't have or know anything about code repositories back then... there was no way to rewrite all that code so, while smaller and more efficient, we didn't write configuration file upgrade code any more... the funny thing is that we still expect upgrades to be transparent and no config data to be lost...

so yeah... it depends... i would not expect or even demand that intricate craft simulations like (for example) IDG's to support old FG versions (<2017.1) and those protocols in the same way that i don't expect FG to keep the old protocols around for very long just to support old unmaintained craft from back then... be happy that FG did, for a time, offer a switch to select which protocol you used... i kinda wonder how many folks even looked at their MP settings when the new stuff came out... it isn't until the old stuff is being removed that they start complaining... should we still allow horses and buggies to drive on our highways? ;)
"You get more air close to the ground," said Angalo. "I read that in a book. You get lots of air low down, and not much when you go up."
"Why not?" said Gurder.
"Dunno. It's frightened of heights, I guess."
User avatar
wkitty42
 
Posts: 6426
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:46 pm
Location: central NC, USA
Callsign: wk42
Version: git next
OS: Kubuntu 14.04.5

Re: EDDF-Triangle

Postby AAL545 » Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:20 pm

the main thing is to also ensure folks are using the same MP protocol version


Can you please clarify "MP protocol version"
Are you referring to every pilot or just Jomo.
Note; I found something interesting, if I place my aircraft in ".fgfs/Aircraft/org.flightgear.fgaddon/Aircraft/" and launch FG I cannot proceed unless I update the selected aircraft,
versus if I place my aircraft in a custom home directory folder, and in the FG launcher set the path to that folder there is no update button.
The result of updating the aircraft is it sets everything back to default and wipes out the custom changes I have made, for example; different engine, taxi shaking effect and so on!
I don't like the B-777 from FG because it doesn't have the call 2500' 1000' etc, (I prefer the model from Github)
My point is this, maybe that's what we all need to do to insure we all have the same aircraft.
If Jomo has two different models installed because Jim, John, and Fredrich and I request it, that might be our problem.



AAL 4955
AAL545
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:14 am

Re: EDDF-Triangle

Postby jomo » Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:23 pm

wkitty42 wrote in Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:13 am:a lot of folks are complaining that they can't do thing in that network like they can on the internet... we don't care...
No idea what your work is - surely not in any position where you have to care about the future of the company and/or income for employees. Because customers surely will care abut THEIR profit - if you do not care to offer always the best for the customer (independent of what is best for you) - they will not care about you! May be you change your mind when your company disappears and your salary changes accordingly.

But maybe you did not understand the Problem: There are
- thousands of customers worldwide, different location, operating systems, environments, rich/poor, trained/beginners, etc etc
- using thousands of different models,
- some of those models are multiplied by different engineers/groups under the same name in different libraries
- especially the most wanted models are available in multiple versions under the same ID
- the users do not care what you want - but they care about what they want
- etc.

Take e.g. the case we are talking here: Obviously "dammers" is interested in getting his Baby to be used by as many people as possible! What do you suggest him? Wait till all people worldwide are on the next level of all FGFS-features and of course all OperatingSytems and MPs, etc. etc. And is that the same advise for those hundreds of Model-designers in all different (I guess over 100) design-Lib's - putting out new models/versions each day?

I insist: Each designer must take care of the existing environment he is designing for - or he might state that it is functioning only in restricted environments -- and even then he never should use the existing model-ID if his design is not compatible with the existing one! And of course he will not be seen from others (e.g. on MP-Events or EDDF-Triangle he will be only show up as a blue/yellow, or similar).

That of course you do not have to consider if you do not care about what your customers and/or friends want.
But then you will be alone soon - having all FGFS etc all by yourself! Nobody would disturb you! And reverse!
jomo / ATCjomo + EDDFjo1 + EDDFjo2
ATC at EDDF Fr,Sa,Su,We from 20:00 to 24:00 CET/MEZ., see http://www.emmerich-j.de
User avatar
jomo
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: Mainz, Germany
Callsign: jomo jomoATC
OS: UBUNTU 18.4

Re: EDDF-Triangle

Postby tdammers » Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:48 pm

OK, a few things.

First, I've put the DHC-6 that previously showed up noseless in the usual spot (EDDF, parking V174), @jomo, if you'd like to check once it gets a little less busy, that would be wonderful. I have tested the upgrade between two different FG versions back and forth, but that doesn't really tell me whether it works, because neither version had the problem in the first place. So if you could confirm that I have a nose now, that would be wonderful. (And it would also be a good hint at the 777 gear and similar issues, so if this solves it, I could probably be convinced to do similar bug-hunting sessions for other aircraft).

Then, protocol version. As I said earlier, there are two protocol versions out there, 1.0 and 1.2. There are some provisions in place to provide a reasonable level of backwards compatibility, but it is impossible to retroactively change old versions that are already out there, so the degree to which this can be done is limited. Specifically, this means that anyone using the old protocol may not be seeing everything correctly, which is why the DHC-6 nose was missing, among other things. While we cannot force people to upgrade, we *can* agree that 1) people *should* use a reasonably new release for MP events, and 2) people who don't should expect some degree of (mild) brokenness.

Further, aircraft versions, and making aircraft compatible between FG versions and A/C versions. While it is possible to figure out breakage, like I did, this is a very time consuming thing, and tricky when it happens in such specific circumstances (after all, everyone I asked except jomo saw the noses just fine). So it's not just a matter of aircraft authors doing their homework - many many unforseen things can and do happen, and it's impossible to anticipate them all. Avoiding these things would require massive changes to the way MP and aircraft design works, and implementing this would break FG and all existing aircraft. So unfortunately, this isn't something we can expect in the near future. Best we can do, really, is encourage people to keep their FG install and aircraft up-to-date, and make this as painless as we can.
tdammers
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:35 am
Callsign: NL256
IRC name: nl256

Re: EDDF-Triangle

Postby jomo » Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:56 pm

Huhrrrääääähhhhhhhhhhh
I see it
see http://www.emmerich-j.de/EDDF/twin-6 +7
jomo / ATCjomo + EDDFjo1 + EDDFjo2
ATC at EDDF Fr,Sa,Su,We from 20:00 to 24:00 CET/MEZ., see http://www.emmerich-j.de
User avatar
jomo
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: Mainz, Germany
Callsign: jomo jomoATC
OS: UBUNTU 18.4

Re: EDDF-Triangle

Postby tdammers » Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:34 pm

Awesome! Nose and all!

I just noticed, btw., that at some point in the very distant past (2015, IIRC), the list of MP properties for the DHC-6 had been changed completely, so another possible explanation would be that you just had a very old one installed, and something else (idk, one of the lights, or maybe tiedowns / chocks / ...) may have ended up in the blunt-nose slot. If that something else had a value other than exactly 0 or 1, then you'd see the missing nose. Oh well.
tdammers
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:35 am
Callsign: NL256
IRC name: nl256

Re: EDDF-Triangle

Postby AAL545 » Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:24 pm

Best we can do, really, is encourage people to keep their FG install and aircraft up-to-date


That's what has me puzzled, I did a test today parking at EDDF with up to date FG (2018.1.1) and up to date B777-300 ER and Jomo said no gear.
Then I started another session and this time with the B777-300 ER from Github and Jomo saw the gear.



AAL 4955
AAL545
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:14 am

Re: EDDF-Triangle

Postby Richard » Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:48 pm

jomo wrote in Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:23 pm:Each designer must take care of the existing environment he is designing for - or he might state that it is functioning only in restricted environments -- and even then he never should use the existing model-ID if his design is not compatible with the existing one! And of course he will not be seen from others (e.g. on MP-Events or EDDF-Triangle he will be only show up as a blue/yellow, or similar).


I agree that model names should be unique; but a lot of devs may not have realised that it is the 3d model XML filename that is used for MP name; and not the -set.xml name.

The first advice is always going to be that everyone should be using the latest version of FlightGear running the 2017.2 protocol; and if anyone who can't or won't run the latest should be aware that certain things will simply not work when trying to view models that are coming from a newer FG version.

Designing how multiplayer aircraft work is complicated - but my general advice to developers is to make sure that the default plane model is correctly configured to take into account nil or zero values in the MP tree - which is what will happen when a newer model is loaded into an older FlightGear.
Richard
 
Posts: 772
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:17 pm
Version: Git
OS: Win10

Re: EDDF-Triangle

Postby jomo » Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:54 pm

Well now: Whatever! Nice to see that nice nose now (but somehow I miss that missing nose - nothing to laugh any more! By the way: In my Folder I had the version 20171003 -- it is now on 20180424 (that is 6 month old!!!).

To all those clever guys who believe each FGFS-user should always check for the newest models (even if he needs them only for events to SEE the other guys (e.g. like an ATC): try to understand:
I now have downloaded 300 models in my local lib,
Can anybody speak for all FGFS-users and tell me from which of those Libs's I should take e.g. the beloved A320?
Maybe one of you guys can/want to take the task to list ALL 1000's of MODELS AVAILABLE and inform the world each day or week or month what was changed etc. (If you want to try you should be a very strong guy -- because the other developers may kill you if you do not suggest theirs!
And remember: There once was an effort to have one library for models to be used (http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/flightgear/ftp/Aircraft/) -- that would have helped!! How about trying to explain yourself why we today have many many design-groups in different Gits or whatever - but they never get merged into that MASTER! Find a solution for that - and we do not need to discuss any-more!

If you believe you can define and maintain such a single list: just DO IT !!!
jomo / ATCjomo + EDDFjo1 + EDDFjo2
ATC at EDDF Fr,Sa,Su,We from 20:00 to 24:00 CET/MEZ., see http://www.emmerich-j.de
User avatar
jomo
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: Mainz, Germany
Callsign: jomo jomoATC
OS: UBUNTU 18.4

Re: EDDF-Triangle

Postby Richard » Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:48 am

AAL545 wrote in Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:20 pm:
the main thing is to also ensure folks are using the same MP protocol version


Can you please clarify "MP protocol version"
Are you referring to every pilot or just Jomo.


Just to clarify if you're running 2017.2 or later it doesn't matter what version of the protocol other pilots are using as it can handle whatever protocol is sent.

Any version of FG before 2017.1 will only be able to receive the basic aircraft position and velocity of 2017.2 protocol users.
Richard
 
Posts: 772
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:17 pm
Version: Git
OS: Win10

Re: EDDF-Triangle

Postby jomo » Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:45 am

Richard wrote in Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:48 am: Just to clarify if you're running 2017.2 or later it doesn't matter what version of the protocol other pilots are using as it can handle whatever protocol is sent.

Pls help me: :mrgreen:
I Posted my system configuration already in this thread by photos taking from my FGFS displays. See my posting in this forum
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=13009&start=15#p331303

You still can look for those img's on http://www.emmerich-j.de/EDDF/twin-3 (of 1 to 6)
According to my eyeglasses that says "FGFS 2017.2.1".
Do all those comments since then mean 2017.2.1 is worse than 2017.2 ? :oops:
jomo / ATCjomo + EDDFjo1 + EDDFjo2
ATC at EDDF Fr,Sa,Su,We from 20:00 to 24:00 CET/MEZ., see http://www.emmerich-j.de
User avatar
jomo
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: Mainz, Germany
Callsign: jomo jomoATC
OS: UBUNTU 18.4

Re: EDDF-Triangle

Postby AAL545 » Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:08 pm

And remember: There once was an effort to have one library for models to be used (http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/flightgear/ftp/Aircraft/) -- that would have helped!! How about trying to explain yourself why we today have many many design-groups in different Gits or whatever - but they never get merged into that MASTER! Find a solution for that - and we do not need to discuss any-more!


How about writing a code that when you enable MP the code will check if your aircraft is up to date or matches (whatever you want to call it) according to the online database.
It will give you a green light, ember, or red and then you choose what you want to do, proceed with minimal functions or update. (Only when flying MP)
That way with MP enabled we are all communicating with the same code/ computer language. Because really, that's all this is is software.
I'm sure this can be done it's just a matter of know how and like Jomo said, right now we (including myself) are downloading from three maybe four sources.
What I found out is troubling to me, using the B777-300 ER from Flightgear.org/ http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/flightgear/ftp/Aircraft/ didn't solve the problem.
I like FG, I like to fly MP and I also like to watch the movies and see good results including seeing all the correct functions of the parts.
Please someone find a solution.



FG 2018.1.1
AAL 4955
AAL545
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:14 am

Re: EDDF-Triangle

Postby jomo » Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:53 pm

AAL545 wrote in Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:08 pm:
How about writing a code that when you enable MP the code will check if your aircraft is up to date or matches (whatever you want to call it) according to the online database.

I am afraid that would not be that easy:
    1. There is a much bigger Problem with the software: We have an unlimited amount of libraries and "same-as-models" (with little differences , not just release-dates)! That would mean you have to change all programs that use the Model-ID to check "ALL" models in ALLL (100?) libraries - that may become quit some network searching (and still some continuing controlling/maintaining efforts)!
    2. There is even a much bigger problem: those funny Human beings! You would need a commitment from all the designers to cooperate! I doubt very much that you could get the designers to cooperate! Usually especially the younger ones would not care.
    3) What would it help if there are two Modelsl with same ID but conflicting version? What should the Or-Cam film show now?
So I am afraid you either
    a) have to leave the free FGFS-world and e.g. use the Microsft-Controlled-System
    b) or tell the ATC that you have a REALL problem because you switched to a different program (I guess till now that worked well)
    c) or you pay lots of money to try to make the changes as you suggested - and get the agreement of all FGFS-users for that!
sorry
jomo / ATCjomo + EDDFjo1 + EDDFjo2
ATC at EDDF Fr,Sa,Su,We from 20:00 to 24:00 CET/MEZ., see http://www.emmerich-j.de
User avatar
jomo
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: Mainz, Germany
Callsign: jomo jomoATC
OS: UBUNTU 18.4

Re: EDDF-Triangle

Postby AAL545 » Sat Apr 28, 2018 3:38 am

It was just an idea, might be crazy and difficult but still an idea.
The thing is I'd rather be laughed at then keeping a good idea to myself.
This might be a long shot but I found something strange, I have B767 also installed (which I never fly) and when I launched FG and select aircraft I had double
entries of that same B767, weird. I had to empty the hidden folder in the home directory in /.fgfs/aircraft-data and the double entry was gone.
Now I'm hoping that there was data in that folder from previous aircraft that caused the problem, (which I cleared/ erased) guess I'll find out on my next visit to EDDF.


AAL 4955
AAL545
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:14 am

PreviousNext

Return to Multiplayer events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests