Board index FlightGear Support Tools FGCom

fgcom.flightgear.org + FGCom 3.0 : bug reports

FGCom is a realtime voice communication system specially designed for FlightGear.

fgcom.flightgear.org + FGCom 3.0 : bug reports

Postby F-JJTH » Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:05 pm

Hi,

I'm opening this thread in order to receive remaining bugs. The feature freeze will come soon, it's the moment to report problem before the 3.0 release.
If you haven't updated your FGCom installation, please read the documentation: http://wiki.flightgear.org/FGCom_3.0

Please create 1 reply per bug, it will be easy to read/make reference to a bug.

Regards,
Clément
User avatar
F-JJTH
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:02 am

Re: fgcom.flightgear.org + FGCom 3.0 : bug reports

Postby F-JJTH » Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:20 pm

FGCom 3.0 + Openradar:
When running OpenRadar with FGCom 3.0 as "Internal" mode, OpenRadar is not able to start FGCom 3.0


This is a known limitation in OpenRadar. Wolfram is aware of it and ready to release the fix as soon as Jomo gives his authorisation to do it.

However OpenRadar works fine with FGCom 3.0 in "External" mode !
Last edited by F-JJTH on Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
F-JJTH
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:02 am

Re: fgcom.flightgear.org + FGCom 3.0 : bug reports

Postby F-JJTH » Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:23 pm

When using OpenRadar + FGCom 3.0, my callsign displayed on http://fgcom.flightgear.org is wrong


This is because OpenRadar fills the "callsign" field (sent over UDP) with the COM 0/1 string instead of the callsign (i.e EHAM_TW)

This is not a bug from FGCom 3.0 or http://fgcom.flightgear.org, Wolfram has to fix it in OpenRadar
User avatar
F-JJTH
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:02 am

Re: fgcom.flightgear.org + FGCom 3.0 : bug reports

Postby F-JJTH » Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:17 pm

Sometime the delay between the person who is talking and the person who is listening is long, and sound is cutted. It looks like a bandwidth or internet speed limitation.


Yes it's absolutely possible. Currently I'm hosting the server at my home, on my personal internet connection with a personal computer running 24/24h.
This setup is not a professional hosting, and as stated previously (viewtopic.php?f=32&t=21151#p193116) I'm searching for someone ready to host the server in a professional datacenter. Unfortunately nobody seems to be willing to host it.

There is another server currently running (delta384.server4you.de), I asked to the maintainer of this server if he was able to update his server in order to use all the new features available with FGCom 3.0, that way fgcom.flightgear.org could be transfered to this professional hosting. Unfortunately it seems this maintainer is not ready to host all the new features available with FGCom 3.0. It looks like improving FGCom is not wanted by some people in the community :(

Anyway this problem is not a pure technical problem, it's just a hosting problem that is hard to solve until someone is able to host in a professional datacenter all the features available on fgcom.flightgear.org
User avatar
F-JJTH
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:02 am

Re: fgcom.flightgear.org + FGCom 3.0 : bug reports

Postby jomo » Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:48 am

F-JJTH wrote in Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:17 pm:
There is another server currently running (delta384.server4you.de), I asked to the maintainer of this server if he was able to update his server in order to use all the new features available with FGCom 3.0, that way fgcom.flightgear.org could be transfered to this professional hosting. Unfortunately it seems this maintainer is not ready to host all the new features available with FGCom 3.0. It looks like improving FGCom is not wanted by some people in the community :(

How do you dare to say something like that in reference to a guy who saved the whole FGCom project some time ago by jumping in within just a couple of weeks after the original server was becoming unreliable to unavailable. Since then he provides an excellent and professional service to all of us - and helped building up the FGCom community - I hope he is keeping up his good services until your service has proven to be something better.
For sure you will not get much support by blaming others for you deficiencies - and by just concentrating onto your little "pure technical problems" - instead of seeing and supporting the whole project!
jomo / ATCjomo
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: 831
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: Mainz, Germany
Callsign: jomo jomoATC
OS: UBUNTU 17.10

Re: fgcom.flightgear.org + FGCom 3.0 : bug reports

Postby adrian » Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:58 am

F-JJTH wrote in Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:17 pm:
Sometime the delay between the person who is talking and the person who is listening is long, and sound is cutted. It looks like a bandwidth or internet speed limitation.


Yes it's absolutely possible. Currently I'm hosting the server at my home, on my personal internet connection with a personal computer running 24/24h.


It might not have anything to do with bandwidth or internet connection. I experienced the same issues on the local network using my own application. I think this is an issue with iaxclient, or even worse, with libiax2. Unfortunately, iaxclient is not actively developed anymore, and I ran out of guesses before I could find a solution. YMMV.
adrian
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 2:15 pm

Re: fgcom.flightgear.org + FGCom 3.0 : bug reports

Postby F-JJTH » Wed Dec 18, 2013 8:59 am

Jörg,

jomo wrote in Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:48 am:I hope he is keeping up his good services until your service has proven to be something better.

I wouldn't say that my "service" is better, but that the "features" available on fgcom.flightgear.org are better.

A developper is here to implement new features and fix bugs.
A hoster is here to host a project and provide a quality of service.
I am a developper, not an hoster.
Similarly, FGMS (the flightgear MP server) has been developped by a developper, but his project is hosted by a couple of hoster.
So please, don't ask me to provide a "quality of service", I'm not the good person for that, however you can ask me to fix bugs and new features.

fgcom.flightgear.org is better because:
* You are able to check if you are correctly connected to the server in real time ( http://fgcom.flightgear.org/ )
* You are able to check who is currently connected to the server in real time ( http://fgcom.flightgear.org/ )
* You are able to look at the history of your session ( http://fgcom.flightgear.org/history.php )
* You are able to know which airports/frequencies is the most used ( http://fgcom.flightgear.org/stat.php )
* You are able to record an ATIS message on the server like it's done in real life
* You are able to listen an ATIS message on the server like it's done in real life (you can test the feature at LFML - 125.350MHz)
* The problem about wrong frequencies is solved (e.g 127.320MHz vs 127.325MHz)
* fgcom.flightgear.org uses the last apt.dat file from X-Plane
* Because fgcom.flightgear.org uses the last apt.dat he is synced with the upcoming FlightGear version (v3.0 in february 2014)
* Because fgcom.flightgear.org uses the last apt.dat he has a lot of new frequencies / fixed frequencies (e.g EHAM)
* fgcom.flightgear.org uses the Speex codec: it reduce the bandwidth usage and improve the audio quality
* fgcom.flightgear.org is ready for the 8.33KHz and has already almost all 8.33KHz frequencies ready to use (e.g at EDDS 118.805)


Ok this was only the advantage on server side, now the advantage on client side:

With FGCom 3.0:
* You can use 123.450MHz ( http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/?p= ... 66d422f7bc )
* You can record an ATIS message on fgcom.flightgear.org (e.g ./fgcom -f120.825 -aLFMV )
* The range is calculated dynamically depending on your altitude
* The maximum range is 100nm like the MP protocol
* You can download FGCom 3.0 for Windows 32/64bits and Linux 32/64bits (no need to compile it anymore)
* You can run FGCom 3.0 without command line at all (FGCom 3.0 standalone provide a run_fgcom.[sh | bat] file that you just need to double-click)
* The default server is no longer "fgcom.flightgear.org.uk" (out of service since more than 1 year)
* FGCom 3.0 standalone is shipped with the FlightGear installer (no need to install FGCom + FlightGear because FGCom is automatically installed with FlightGear)
* The callsign sent over UDP by FlightGear is handled by FGCom 3.0 and used by http://fgcom.flightgear.org/
* FGCom 3.0 is integrated in FlightGear 3.0 (this is certainly one of the better feature that a lot of people was waiting for)


I'm sure I forgot some other advantages but I think the list is already enough long.
All of these doesn't make it better ? Can you tell me where you are seeing something wrong with all these new features/bugfix ?
I'm ready to improve all the work I already done. You just have to tell me "Hey Clément I found a bug: the ???? is not working as expected, can you fix it please ?"

fgcom.flightgear.org is running since 87 days now, he has handled 31 days of continuous user connections ( http://fgcom.flightgear.org/stat.php ) This make me think that my work is stable and ready to be used by everybody, but like I said, the fgcom.flightgear.org server has to be hosted on a professionnal hosting.

I have some other features in mind like:
* Recording FGCom conversation and make them available for download, that way a user can listen his FGCom session after his flight
* Stream FGCom conversation on web, like it's done on liveatc.net
* Show up on MPMap who is using FGCom
* Show up in FlightGear multiplayer list who is using FGCom

But for now I'm waiting to see if all the new features I've implemented on server side + client side are used before continuing to add more features. (Also I would ask if these feature make sense to the community, is it wanted ? do you think it's a cool features ? or you don't think these features will be usefull ? )

Jörg, feel you free to ask me if you have any question about all these new features, if you don't understand some of them or if you don't know how to uses them.
I'm ready to take the time to explain you more deeply all the improvement I done on FGCom (server/client side)

I hope all the months I spend to make FGCom (server/client side) better is appreciated, I done a lot of work, I added a lot of features, I fixed a lot of bugs (100nm limitation, 123.45MHz usable, fix the ATC mode in FGCom client....)


Regards,
Clément
Last edited by F-JJTH on Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:18 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
F-JJTH
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:02 am

Re: fgcom.flightgear.org + FGCom 3.0 : bug reports

Postby F-JJTH » Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:04 am

Adrian,

adrian wrote in Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:58 am:It might not have anything to do with bandwidth or internet connection. I experienced the same issues on the local network using my own application. I think this is an issue with iaxclient, or even worse, with libiax2. Unfortunately, iaxclient is not actively developed anymore, and I ran out of guesses before I could find a solution. YMMV.


I admit I can't say if you are right or wrong, however I didn't heard that Jörg has this kind of problem with delta384.server4you.de server.
If it appears that delta384 has a similar problem, indeed you are certainly right.

@Jörg, please can you confirm that you have no similar problem with delta384 server ?

Regards,
Clément
User avatar
F-JJTH
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:02 am

Re: fgcom.flightgear.org + FGCom 3.0 : bug reports

Postby jomo » Wed Dec 18, 2013 11:08 am

F-JJTH wrote in Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:04 am:@Jörg, please can you confirm that you have no similar problem with delta384 server ?

I am sure that we do not have that problem with our server. One reason more, to make it diffcult to switch to the new setup.
B U T:
In general we experience problems with delays with a few customers - same time there are no problems at all with others. So I would not expect a server problem there, but
-- some users (and/or ATCs) do not respond as soon as possible
-- some first set their AutoPilot prior to confirm/answere
-- poor Internet connections to some part of the world/users
-- lots of changes in MPserver availability the last few month
-- and it seems we get problems with users using the FGCom3 - but that I cannot (yet) pinpoint. You may ask Lenny what client he was using when visiting EDDF last time - he had a lot of problems - not only FGCom but also FGCom.

I guess you need to narrow it down with the guy that reported that problem.
And of course you are welcome to listen to our moviews and watch yourselfe.
(http://www.emmerich-j.de --> EDDF-Triangel Movies)
jomo / ATCjomo
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: 831
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: Mainz, Germany
Callsign: jomo jomoATC
OS: UBUNTU 17.10

Re: fgcom.flightgear.org + FGCom 3.0 : bug reports

Postby F-JJTH » Wed Dec 18, 2013 12:14 pm

I had a look at the http://www.emmerich-j.de/EDDF/Films/201 ... 801-57.ogv and http://www.emmerich-j.de/EDDF/Films/201 ... 008-61.ogv
The sound problem seems to be related to Internet connections. Sometimes F-LENNY and you can talk perfectly well, but sometimes the communication is bad, FGCom 3.0 doesn't change of state while he is running. The only reachable explanation is fluctuation in the Internet connection ( F-LENNY connection ? delta384 connection ? your connection ? yes there is a lot of connection involved, I think the addition of all these connections is the result of these communications difficulties)
Also the codec used by FGCom 3.0 is exactly the same as the old one (ULAW) for delta384 server. It means there is no change in this area.

On the first movie I'm seeing that ELLX_TW said he "restarted the FGCom server", is it something done regularly ? does it improve the situation most of the time ? I'm asking that because fgcom.flightgear.org hasn't been restarted since 87 days and I had a conversation on this server yesterday without problem. What kind of action is done on server side when ELLX_TW is restarting the FGCom server ?

An answer about viewtopic.php?f=32&t=21581&p=196404#p196395 is welcome.
User avatar
F-JJTH
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:02 am

Re: fgcom.flightgear.org + FGCom 3.0 : bug reports

Postby jomo » Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:15 pm

F-JJTH wrote in Wed Dec 18, 2013 12:14 pm:The sound problem seems to be related to Internet connections. Sometimes F-LENNY and you can talk perfectly well, but sometimes the communication is bad, FGCom 3.0 doesn't change of state while he is running. The only reachable explanation is fluctuation in the Internet connection ( F-LENNY connection ? delta384 connection ? your connection ? yes there is a lot of connection involved, I think the addition of all these connections is the result of these communications difficulties)
Well - of course - the Internet-connections can always cause something like that! But you must have noticed in the movies also, that first ELLX reported problems while Lenny was in its range - while EDDF had no problems at all with others -- and reverse! (BTW: ELLX and EDDF ATCs were in contact on Mumble and exchanged there findings constantly (unrecorded).) At least we now know that Lenny was using a FGCom3 client with the current FGCom-server. Surely that was not yet tested and or monitored very often. So I do not know - but it is certainly something we need to observe more critically.

F-JJTH wrote in Wed Dec 18, 2013 12:14 pm:On the first movie I'm seeing that ELLX_TW said he "restarted the FGCom server", is it something done regularly?
ELLX did not restart the server - but asked the maintainer of that server (D-Leon) to check it. D-Leon found the server was showing a critical overload and tried to solve it by restarting the server! Which did not really help - as you see on the movie afterward! Pls consider 4 facts:
- that server was restarted first time since a lot more than 87 days and after much higher loads!! And this happening was obviously not a server problem.
- you must have also seen the MPmap pictures within the film - telling us that that could not have been caused by a high amount of traffic - so it is absolutely a question to investigate: Why did that server show a high load when there was hardly any traffic? We had much more customer-traffic at EDDF on average days - without the servers reporting a high load! So were does it come from? I thought I have seen some reports on the FORUM that claimed such problems while testing FGCom3-client with FGCom3-server! Did you find some explanations for those occurencies?
- during all that time I did communicate with others without any problems - while Lenny at the same time definitively had problems!
So in my view that has to be monitored very closely. May be you can help to narrow that occurrence down with all that additional monitoring features in your new server! Of course you can also try to send some more FGCom3 users to the EDDF-events and check in the movies what happens - I surely would appreciate that!
jomo / ATCjomo
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: 831
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: Mainz, Germany
Callsign: jomo jomoATC
OS: UBUNTU 17.10

Re: fgcom.flightgear.org + FGCom 3.0 : bug reports

Postby F-JJTH » Wed Dec 18, 2013 5:25 pm

There is too few information to know if there is a problem with FGCom or not. However I'm noticying that you got some problem to communicate with F-LENNY with MPchat too during 2 or 3 minutes ( http://www.emmerich-j.de/EDDF/Films/201 ... 801-57.ogv arround 38:00 ) So it looks more like a global problem on F-LENNY side (no FGCom, no MPchat)
Also at 32:00 F-LENNY and you are able to communicate without problem and the sound quality is really good. So it show that FGCom 3.0 is able to works fine on delta384 server.

Connection with FGCom 3.0 to delta384 has been tested a lot and it works fine. I have personally done the test some weeks ago during Sunday at EDDF. I was here with the UFO, connected on 127.320MHz with FGCom 3.0 and I was able to heard everybody during 1h30 without any problem.

The problem reported by people testing FGCom 3.0 + fgcom.flightgear.org is explained here: viewtopic.php?f=32&t=21581&p=196421#p196336

F-LENNY is also the ATC for LFML, I got multiple flight to LFML using FGCom 3.0 + fgcom.flightgear.org and everything was working fine. Of course I can do additional monitor with fgcom.flightgear.org, but it require to organize some events on fgcom.flightgear.org (if nobody is connected on fgcom.flightgear.org I can monitor nothing...)


Still an answer/feedback about viewtopic.php?f=32&t=21581&p=196421#p196395 would be welcome

Regards,
Clément
User avatar
F-JJTH
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:02 am

Re: fgcom.flightgear.org + FGCom 3.0 : bug reports

Postby sa7k » Wed Dec 18, 2013 8:24 pm

Like F-JJTH said it could be other kinds of problems, I have a regular to bad connection and even if sometimes I can connect to multiplayer and works fine it causes disconnections in every other program, I cannot even stay on IRC if there are other people near. If there is few other planes sometimes I can also use mumble.
sa7k
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:24 pm
Location: SA7K
Callsign: LV-EPM
IRC name: sa7k
Version: git
OS: debian

Re: fgcom.flightgear.org + FGCom 3.0 : bug reports

Postby jomo » Thu Dec 19, 2013 7:22 am

I am a little disappointed about the direction of the discussions here: There definitely are several intermittent problems - and we should try to find a reason for it - whatever the reason is. May be somebody (or even the project-manger?) should define a testplan to pinpoint the problem. I know that will be difficult, because of the complex environment. So we should not just try to find an "may possible" explanation but try to classify under what circumstances that is happening.
I am glad that my films are being used now to verify the occurrence of that problem. But it should reveal more then just "sometimes it happens - sometimes not --> so it is no problem!" We need to know "why it happens sometimes - and why not all the time".
jomo / ATCjomo
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: 831
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: Mainz, Germany
Callsign: jomo jomoATC
OS: UBUNTU 17.10

Re: fgcom.flightgear.org + FGCom 3.0 : bug reports

Postby jomo » Thu Dec 19, 2013 9:17 am

F-JJTH wrote in Wed Dec 18, 2013 5:25 pm:Still an answer/feedback about viewtopic.php?f=32&t=21581&p=196421#p196395 would be welcome
Well - you asked for a comment - so here it is:

I do not know who you are and what your skills are, but I can say something to me:
    - 40 years of Development in a worldwide Computer-Company
    - starting off with MicroCode Analyses and Maintance for Mainframe CPUs (still using core-memories!)
    - then developing a "First Fault Indicator" for the big Mainfram CPU's -- first in VTL-technology -- then using a UC.5 (forerunner of todays PCs) as an autonomous, integrated, maintenance computer
    - joining a team analysing/defining requirements for a worldwide exchange/maintenance of design data (CAD) to/and from many LABS to many Mfg (CAM) locations all over the world (using company networks - there was no Internet then)
    - responsible for implementing and maintaining that system in Europe
    - supporting other companies (that also operated worldwide) in implementing such a system
    - etc.
So I believe you do not need to tell me what the different jobs in design are. But I noticed that you missed the most important role: The Project Engineer, who is responsible for leading his design team and act as interface to the external functions - e.g. Quality, Manufacturing, Field-service, Marketing, etc. AND: Very important: The Project-Leader needs to be able to motivate his "helpers" - even if they may not always agree to everything that the leader is saying/writing....

Till now I did believe you have taken that total project responsibility for FGCom (and also all the tiny detail engineering jobs in one person)! If you really just are the one writing some lines of code - then please tell us the Project-responsible engineer - so we can plan with him.

I do not not want to comment to each detail advantage you listed. But I guess we all expected an Upgrade to the existing FGCom program(s) in regards to Quality, Maintenance, Installation. And that is what I expect as a basis - but I do not see that yet (Incompatability, Intermittand erros, no server, OSX support?). And that must be compatible with the older FGFS versions - otherwise we need to maintain 2 versions of FGCOM in order to support ALL FGCom users on ALL Operating-Systems on ALL levels! Not just the FGFS 3.0! Believe me I know: It is much easier to design something new without considering also a "still existing old environment" - but we have to do that if we do not want to loose the majority of existing customers. I promise: EDDF will remain open for ALL FGFS users (with a minimum of pilot skills!) - even if that means we would need to look for other solutions (like mumble or what ever).

AFTER that we may start to add additional services - by which I do not see any new service in your list that I mean I need in order to manage MP-events with FGCom. There are a lot of things which may be "nice to have" - but were I do not see a major operational advantage. Let me give you 2 examples:
1) User support and maintenance: I do not believe you can do that just based on the Radio-communication. For that You also need to evaluate the actual flightdata and environment and techniques available for that unique customer (even if not on FGFS 3.0 or even not using any FGCOM). I believe we do have such a combined tool already operational at EDDF with the movies! I do not see big advantages in your proposals - considering the "real FGFS environment" and NOT the "Real World".
2) Every additional feature cost Server capacity (may be not much for each unique feature - but it counts up!). And as I follow the messages there is not even a server available for the now expected workload - not to speak about the hopefully growing amount of users in the future! Even the now existing "old server" is getting to it's limits! So it would make much more sense to work on solutions for using multiple servers (like MP-servers - yes - I know it is a different technology)! That is something we need urgently in order be able to grow! (And is (for private people) much easier to provide and maintain than one Super-Computer).
jomo / ATCjomo
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: 831
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: Mainz, Germany
Callsign: jomo jomoATC
OS: UBUNTU 17.10

Next

Return to FGCom

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest