Hi Jörg,
jomo wrote in Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:09 am:In summary I conclude: It looks great for the future - but needs some more testing, improvements, and a lot of documentation changes (e.g. wiki, server installation, etc.) - as is normal with a new design.
I agree that documentation change is a big part of the work now and I'm aware it's not an easy task because we need to keep the wiki documentation simple, clear and effective for the users.
I would suggest to have 3 wiki pages:
- 1 page for FGCom built-in ( a good start is certainly
http://wiki.flightgear.org/Integrating_FGCom )
- 1 page for FGCom-sa
- 1 page for "old" FGCom ( mostly all the current wiki page about FGCom as of today )
What is your opinion ? Do you have a suggest ?
jomo wrote in Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:09 am:The long expected new LINUX-Standalone-Versions (FGCom-sa) are not yet functional/installable
(in a standard fashion)
They are functional and doesn't require any installation step (which is simpler for our users). Visit
http://fgcom.flightgear.org/download, download your FGCom version depending on your operating system, then unzip it, now you are able to run FGCom-sa from a command line as we have done it for many years.
No compilation is required (which is certainly a huge good things), no GIT software is required (only a web browser for downloading a zip file).
I even plan to provide a little "run_fgcom.sh" (run_fgcom.bat for Windows) in order to avoid the user to run FGCom from the command line. The .sh (.bat) file will be a simple "double-clic me" and that's all. I can see an easier way to run FGCom for our users (go on a website + download your FGCom + unzip it + double clic on the launcher that's all)
In a terminal it could be as simple as: copy/past this command in a terminal in order to run FGCom-sa:
For Linux 64:
- Code: Select all
wget http://fgcom.flightgear.org/download/fgcom-2.99.0_linux64.zip && unzip fgcom-2.99.0_linux64.zip && cd fgcom/bin && ./fgcom
For Linux 32:
- Code: Select all
wget http://fgcom.flightgear.org/download/fgcom-2.99.0_linux64.zip && unzip fgcom-2.99.0_linux32.zip && cd fgcom/bin && ./fgcom
Then run your FlightGear with
--generic=socket,out,10,localhost,16661,udp,fgcom that's all.
Try it ! it's already working
Let me know if you have suggest.
jomo wrote in Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:09 am:Conflicts between the old and new FGCOM in regards to frequencies used [...]
- as of today a pilot with the "old" FGCOM on 127.32 cannot talk to one with the new FGCOM
- Pilots that are used to set the frequency manually cannot set the new frequency (6 digets) e.g. in the c172p Radio-Stack (Most probably that radio is also used in other models.
This information is wrong if you use fgcom.flightgear.org as server. All of this is solved on server side, it's totally transparent for the users. That's why I recommand you to use fgcom.flightgear.org
You can connect on 127.32 with an old FGCom, 127.325 with a new FGCom, 127.32 with FGCom built-in, 127.325 with FGCom built-in all users will be able to listen and talk to each other. All of this is working since September.
jomo wrote in Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:09 am:The often used Debug-Echo-Procedure "use freq. 910 -> talk -> you must hear the last word twice" does seem to become confusing - because people report they hear music on 910 - and do not know what that means!
This information is certainly an error from the user who reported that. I confirm that 910 is for Echo test, 911 is for music. So the user who reported this information has certainly did an error in his frequency dialog.
Looking at the history at
http://fgcom.flightgear.org/history.php I can see this user who tuned on 911 and because of this web page I can assure you that this user has selected 911 instead of 910.
So this is not a bug, it's a simple error from one of our user.
jomo wrote in Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:09 am:Also now again nobody is sure if they still can/should use the new server - or the old new - or even the original (old) "UK"-server, etc.
I have personally contact the maintainer of fgcom.flightgear.org.uk, this is his answer when I asked him the state of his server:
Hi Clement
My fgcom server was shut down months ago, after being rudely told that my services were no longer required because someone else had started one up…
I think this sentence is enough clear and we can safely consider fgcom.flightgear.org.uk as "no longer active"
jomo wrote in Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:09 am:The designer plans to disable the possibility to set up several FGCOM Servers.
In my view that is a absolute "NoNo":
You certainly misunderstood my MP, I said it could be a possibility to remove the choice of server to our users. That way our users don't have to ask "which server should I use ???? I'm lost ! there is plenty of server ! Which one is the good one ??". However it's already possible to leave a specifc property for this purpose like it's already done
Look at the wiki documentation
http://wiki.flightgear.org/Integrating_FGCom this is working since August 2013
jomo wrote in Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:09 am:am not sure that everybody wants to be listed over a longer time frame in that History-Listing! I do have concerns regarding publicizing those "privat data" to all Internet users.
The history listing is mostly for debug purpose until FG 3.0 release. I've setup this tools in order to track errors/bugs, this is a tools really useful for me in order to know if everythings is working as expected.
This page is available to everybody because I want that everybody know what I'm able to know. That way there is no "oh look ! one of FlightGear developper is tracking a million of informations from us in order to sold them to a company !" Of course this is a caricatural representation and you can be sure this is absolutely not my goal here. My goal is to have a tool who tell me if all my stuff is working as expected because users feedback are finally rare...
jomo wrote in Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:09 am:Yes - MPservers are doing similar things - but mostly only the "actual data" - the history can only be seen by logged in people!
For your information everybody is able to see your history, not only your "actual data" and without login:
http://mpserver12.flightgear.org/tracke ... ght/14146/http://mpserver12.flightgear.org/tracke ... ght/14125/http://mpserver15.flightgear.org/module ... GN=ATCjomo (we can clic on each of your flight and see where you were, when, how...15 pages of history)
http://mpserver15.flightgear.org/module ... LSIGN=jomo (37 pages of history)
http://mpserver15.flightgear.org/module ... ID=2900195So I guess there is much more information on mpserver15.flightgear.org about you than fgcom.flightgear.org. If you disagree with this I would suggest to contact the maintainer of this website as soon as possible !
jomo wrote in Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:09 am:As the guy who has initiated those WIKIs I have tried to "undo" all those changes (for now).
Please don't revert changes if you are not fully aware of the current state of FGCom. All changes that I did for now are mostly not important, I simply changed all the fgcom.flightgear.org.uk for fgcom.flightgear.org (as stated the original server is no longer active so this change will avoid our user to ask "what is this server address ???") And I started to put some {{note}} (I haven't removed or changed any procedural information) in order to show to people that something is being changed.
jomo wrote in Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:09 am:We should start a combined effort to keep the WIKIs in a form to support old and new!
I agree and my current post is mostly oriented in this way. That's why you are invited to do suggest
Regards,
Clément