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.

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

Postby KL-666 » Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:16 pm

A couple of post ago i saw a big list of concerns by Jomo pass by. Individually they may not seem much. But together they are quite worrying. Especially because (problems in) fgcom affect multiple users.

In my work in automation i do not worry much if one workstation breaks. I'll just replace it. But if it is a server where multiple people depend on, i make very sure that it will not break. There are a lot of measures that can be taken to assure that.

Same in flightgear. A plane builder has not much responsibility. If it does not work, take another plane. But if fgcom breaks many people have a big problem. That makes that with developing fgcom you have a bigger responsibility, to make sure it sustains, is backwards compatible, etc...

After that big post of Jomo, i have only seen reactions on the copyright point. I do not think one can blame Jomo for that.

Kind regards, Vincent
KL-666
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:32 pm

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

Postby Gijs » Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:23 pm

KL-666 wrote in Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:16 pm:After that big post of Jomo, i have only seen reactions on the copyright point.

The rest was already addressed by Clément in his post viewtopic.php?p=197348#p197348 Now it's Jomo's turn to reply to that ;-)
And let's try to stay nice to each other. We all like to see a well maintained, up to date, stable FGCom. No-one here wants to destroy or take away FGCom, so please try to act accordingly.
Airports: EHAM, EHLE, KSFO
Aircraft: 747-400
User avatar
Gijs
Moderator
 
Posts: 9304
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:55 pm
Location: Amsterdam/Delft, the Netherlands
Callsign: PH-GYS
Version: Git
OS: Windows 10

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

Postby KL-666 » Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:38 pm

You are right Gijs, that post did go into the issues. But the flaming character of that one gives me more the feeling someone wants to be right in the discussion, than someone taking his responsibility seriously.

I very much hope that feeling of me is wrong. Just 3 days to go....

Kind regards, Vincent
KL-666
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:32 pm

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

Postby jomo » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:53 am

Gijs wrote in Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:23 pm:The rest was already addressed by Clément in his post viewtopic.php?p=197348#p197348 Now it's Jomo's turn to reply to that ;-)

I was not planning to reply to that viewtopic.php?p=197348#p197348, because:
    - all that points had been discussed already several times, inside and outside the forum
    - based on all that extended previous communications I had already come to my conclusion, which I just tried to explain in my Note viewtopic.php?p=197348#p197341
    - I have not yet seen any comment to my issues/concerns that would change my publicized conclusion. And I do not see any chance for solving within the few remaining days - what we could not even find a common understanding for during the last 3 month.
But if it "is my turn to reply" - here are my "usr-comments" to the "eng-answers":

  1. how to support customers that do not immediately upgrade to FGFS 3.0 (or 2.99)
    eng-answer: You are wrong, the old FGCom is still working for those who do not immediately upgrade to FGFS 3.0
    usr-comment: That answer is correct -- as long as FGCom-3.0 users work with FGCom-3.0 users and users of current FGCom work with current FGCom users only. That is no way to operate in a worldwide user-environment. The actual statement from engineering is, that everybody uses the new FGCom-3.0 server and reduce the frequencies available. Thus we need a plan for a "phase-in" instead of "break-in". This was discussed in many notes (not only by me).
  2. MAC/OSX is not supported.
    eng-answer: You are wrong, MAC/OSX is supported by FGCom
    usr-comment: My written point was: "at least there is no mention about OSX in the “wiki.flightgear.org/ FGCom_3.0” documentation – and there is no mention of an “OSX standalone version” either!".
    ok: I checked the doc's this morning - and that has been corrected now (after my writing). I would have liked to know who has tested it - because I am surely not buying a Mac in order to test it!
  3. FGCOMGUI will not be supported
    eng-answer: FGCOMGUI is broken (impossible to compile him), unmaintained, and unuseful.
    usr-comment: That is wrong: Many people are still using it (if you want I give you a running example to install and test). The only thing that is "broken/non functional" is the start-command for FGCom-3.0, because that FGCom-3.0. is requiring a different start-command than FGCom does. Also I see no big problem in changing the FGCom-Start-Routine inside FGCOMGUI the same way as Wolfram did it for his OpenRadar! (Even so I would prefer if FGCom-3.3 could be started as easily as it is for FGCom (just type "fgcom").
    eng-answer: The new FGCom 3.0 standalone is provided with 2 simple script "run_fgcom" and "test_fgcom" who just require a double click. FGCOMGUI require to be configured, you must know where is located the binary (fgcom.exe), which server you want to use, the port number...
    comment: I am not really sure that this is supposed to be a serious answer to that problem: Shall it really be easier to select 1 out of 2 batch-files (with all options fixed) -- compared to the current "just type fgcomgui", that starts FGCom automatically and provides all options to be selected/changed and tested etc. ?
    eng-answer: With FGCom 3.0 standalone you have nothing to do, because everything works as is.
    usr-comment: I am not sure what is meant here:
    - for sure FGCom is working today very successfully and functional - while that is not yet verified for FGCom-3.0
    - but it could also mean that the designer does not want the user to set any other options then he is predefining. (What for do we have the possibility to change the options from inside FGFS-3.0-menus (like is in FGCOMGUI) - and also by adding them inside the start-batch-files? Having to type this options manually into the batchfiles is definitely more difficult than selecting them from a FGCOMGUI-menu
  4. runtime, response-time, reliability, compatibility (especially when mixed FGCom versions are used.)
    eng-answer: Why there is no bug report about that? ... I looked at a lot of your video and even I came at EDDF event and didn't noticed a problem
    usr-comment: I wonder why you did all that if you did not know of any problems. And it is wrong that there were no problems when you visited me at EDDF (do you want to know on what movie that is seen?) - we together even experienced at that point of time several problems - but as I stated before: We could not define what caused those problems. But surely I would expect more from a "Last Level Support" (especially during the test-phase!) as just stating: You cannot prove that it is a unique FGCom problem - so it is none! One more reason why I request a "phase in" to have time to evaluate.
    I guess the rest of the writing to this point is not worse a comment from me
  5. Reliability concern: many more features planned and already in design while the Base-Design is not yet stable
    eng-answer: none
  6. Lifetime concern: Next functional changes are already/still in discussion - pls wait till after a first verification of the basic design
    eng-answer: none
  7. The documentation is very poor
    eng-answer: Why a user need of available options ?
    usr-comment: Because they were there and were very useful for many years! Shall FGCom-3.0. really reduce the possibilities for the application? One example: Shall a user not be able to work with the "standalone FGCom-3.0" when FGFS is not running? How could you set the airport frequency then?
    eng-answer: ATC, UNICOM, free talk ??? All of this has nothing to do in a documentation who explain how to use a software.
    usr-comment: How and when to use a Software does not belong into the user-documentation for that software? Really? I really do not want to comment all the examples given - I guess everybody should read those and descide himselfe if a guy trying FGCom for the time is able to understand: What how when etc.
  8. The Project does NOT conform to the “GNU General Public License”
    eng-answer: I think you need to learn about "What is a Copyright and what it mean".
    usr-comment: Some entries down I did already explain why I am convinced that a Source-Code cannot be GNU and Copyright at the same time. Of course evrything you do is copyright and you may point out that you give it free as "GNU". But then you cannot just show on the screen "Copyright" without the addendum "free... GNU". I did not yet see that anywhere in FGFS (on the Screen!). But that is a concern for the FGFS-designers and the maintainers of the future servers (inside or outside FGFS!).
    (I personally do not understand why the very restrictive "Copyright" should be placed that significantly on the screen - when actually the designer has replaced those extensive "Copyright" rights by the very restrictive "GNU" rules. I do not mind the name shown - may be even a "Donated by ....", or "Designed by...", or whatever. I thought we are proud on dedicating everything to a free usage)
  9. There is no project leadership visible
    eng-answer: Why do you need of a "project leadership"? I'm the maintainer/developer of FGCom, isn't it enough ?
    usr-comment: The answer before was: “because I'm not a project leader I don't see the interest to motivate my helpers". That proves why a "Project Leader" is needed to take some responsibility for a project, may it have only one designer or many. And I am convinced there is no one project inside FGFS that can be completed just by one person alone - and thus there is motivation and coordination needed for all "helpers" that are needed.
  10. The last-level-user-support is very poor
    eng-answer: Since I'm involved in FGCom I answered to almost every topics created in the "FGCom" sub-forum.
    usr-comment: Yes you did - but most of the answers were not really supportive - as also is shown in your answeres in your "eng-answeres". And many were just misleading - i.e. the actual test of the design revealed something different than you stated. Yes I know: That is normal during the initial design -- of course - but when you asked me in Oct to test you were already pushing very hard for an immediate cut in - while obviously the groundrules were not yet completely defined!

I still hope that with some more time it may become possible to establish an environment in which engineering and tester and user can start to cooperate and keep respect for each other - that would help a lot in regards to a successful "phase-in". Belief me: I want that FGCom-integration longer and harder than most people around - but I will not endanger our current operations because of 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 adrian » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:45 am

jomo: aside from your copyright issues which are completely out of touch with reality and are better ignored by everybody, you still have a few valid points. I believe most are being addressed by Clement in this timeline. However, you are still mentioning having "problems" with FGcom, but you don't specify what those problems are. How do you expect anyone to address those problems? I have offered to implement a different voice protocol, if the current one is not up to task. But first make sure it can't be fixed in a simple way.
So you can start again by stating exactly what is the technical nature of the problems you have with FGcom, and a solution may be found one way or another.

And leave the copyright alone, this is embarassing.
adrian
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 2:15 pm

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

Postby jomo » Wed Jan 08, 2014 1:11 pm

adrian wrote in Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:45 am:... you are still mentioning having "problems" with FGcom, but you don't specify what those problems are. How do you expect anyone to address those problems? So you can start again by stating exactly what is the technical nature of the problems you have with FGcom, and a solution may be found one way or another.

Thanks for the help offered
but I have problems attacking that without engineering support. Clement has viewed several occurrences together with me at EDDF and on film - but I guess you know how difficult it is to pinpoint an intermittent error - especially when the operating environment is constantly changing. But let me try to give you my "knowledge" and/or "feelings":

It is a disturbed connection, going from chopping - to dead - and seems to "bump up the server load" drastically - but cannot be explained by the amount of users! Yes - this occurrence of chopping is known since a long time - but not as bad/often as then, and usually only 1 pilot at a time is being affected - but with what I mean it seems to spread to all at once. But we also had it that the starting guy becomes worse and worse, cannot recover/retune - and then has to completely restart. And it repeatedly seemed to be starting with some unique visitors.

I guess you know that we are strictly working with the old server"delta384.server4you.de".

I tried to pinpoint it to unique pilots having some unique things (i.e. FGCom3.0 client, being on MAC, talking much, many visitors, etc) - but was not very lucky in defining a reproducable setup. I only know for sure that several pilots did change from FGCom3.0 client to the old style -- and that in the last weeks that problem did not show. (But may be that was due to bad weather and holidays and less traffic than usual!). And quite frankly: I as ATC do not use/try FGCom3.0 client any more: I had three times that the problem resulted in a hang - I had to reboot completely - and that is not nice if you have several "customers" around, waiting for advise.

I guess the biggest help would be to get some "friends" with some knowledge together, so you know/ctrl what version they use and how much they talk (maybe a little more than usual - without disabling ATC operations)! We need to monitor the direct sound-problem as also the server load.
But please not tonight - it will be the first night that we will be using our new fgcom01.flightgear.org server. And it seems to become good weather and thus I expect lots of visitors - so it may be some kind of confusion anyhow.

Would be interesting to know if such stresstests had been done during development and what the results had been- especially with that "weak PC-server".
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 Jan 08, 2014 3:34 pm

Right. This a lot more constructive. I think the problem with the audio getting chopped and then lost is due to a strange interaction between Asterisk and iaxclient.
I've seen that myself, and I wasn't able to pinpoint the cause either. I guess this happens when IAX frames start to misalign timestamps. Asterisk was rewriting the timestamps on the frames before. Now, at least since 1.6, it passes on the timestamps as sent by the client. The audio mixing inside the conference application goes awry after that. I was going to ask if the server is still using MeetMe or did you guys try ConfBridge. Personally, I've tried both, and I have seen the problem with both. But don't let that discourage you. In any case, this means that my usage of Pulseaudio with iaxclient is correct, because these errors happen with openAL too. So it's not a sound-related problem, but something buried deep inside libiax2, interacting badly with Asterisk. There are several other applications using libiax2 and they work fine, the problem is that most of them have a different version of the code.
adrian
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 2:15 pm

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

Postby Gijs » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:49 pm

Hi jomo,

just did a couple of tests with FGComGUI and FGCom 3.0. Short summary (if people don't want to read all the details): FGComGUI works fine with FGCom 3.0, apart from the fact that the output is hidden in the GUI.

I'll write down what I did.

I downloaded the Win64 package for FGCom 3.0 from http://fgcom.flightgear.org/download/ and unzipped it to C:/FlightGear/FGCom. I then did the following:
  1. Open FGComGUI
  2. Go to Settings, point the exe to the FGCom 3.0 exe (C:/FlightGear/FGCom/bin/fgcom.exe in my case) and set the server to fgcom.flightgear.org
  3. Set mode to echo-test
  4. Open http://fgcom.flightgear.org in your favourite browser and make sure you can see it next to the GUI.
  5. Press "Start" in the GUI and see "guest" appear on the fgcom.flightgear.org list after some seconds.
  6. Press "Stop" and see "guest" disappear after some time (this can take some 30 seconds, I think the server keeps the connection open to smooth out interruptions).
I don't see any output in the GUI log, but when I copy the command line that's shown to an empty console, I get the usuall output (calls, frequencies, in range etc.). The output/input volume settings are ignored, but for the rest it all works fine. With all three servers: the delta server, fgcom.flightgear.org and fgcom01.flightgear.org.

So, the lack of output in the GUI is misleading. FGCom is just working fine in the background.

When using "Normal mode" in combination with FlightGear, I get the same behaviour. FGCom works fine, but I don't see any output in FGComGUI. Check the fgcom.flightgear.org list to confirm that you're connected. Make sure your COM1 is set to a frequency in range, else you won't be displayed in the list.

Conclusion: FGComGUI works fine with FGCom 3.0, apart from the fact that the output is hidden. I don't know how to build FGComGUI from source, but if anyone does, he/she now knows what to work on. Please give the procedure that I outlined above a try and report if that works or not. If it doesn't work, please indicate at what step, what settings etc., so we can try to find out why.

Next I'll address some of jomo's other comments that I encountered during my tests:
(Even so I would prefer if FGCom-3.3 could be started as easily as it is for FGCom (just type "fgcom").

Works fine here. I can just run C:/FlightGear/FGCom/bin/fgcom (or C:/FlightGear/FGCom/bin/fgcom.exe) and it works without any options or configuration changes.

Later in your posts, you say "just type fgcomgui, that starts FGCom automatically". Is that the same as above? I don't have FGCom starting automatically when I open the GUI. I first need to press "Start"...

Shall a user not be able to work with the "standalone FGCom-3.0" when FGFS is not running? How could you set the airport frequency then?

Not sure what you're asking here, but as far as I could see, you cannot set the frequency in FGComGUI right? You either use OpenRadar or FlightGear for that. And that works fine with FGCom 3.0 as far as I've tested... Or is there a third way to run (the old) FGCom that I'm unaware of?

Cheers,
Gijs
Airports: EHAM, EHLE, KSFO
Aircraft: 747-400
User avatar
Gijs
Moderator
 
Posts: 9304
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:55 pm
Location: Amsterdam/Delft, the Netherlands
Callsign: PH-GYS
Version: Git
OS: Windows 10

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

Postby AndersG » Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:36 pm

jomo wrote in Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:24 pm:2) As I said befor: I am no lawyer - but after reading lots of definitions of "Copyright" and "GNU" I am sure a "source" cannot be both! And if that question ends in court (maybe somebody gets as made on FGFS as now on this dum jomo) then he has a very good argument with: "I did not know about that GNU - but I mad perfectly clear that my design is Copyright-protected by that writing - clearly visible to everybody". I am not sure who then must take those costs, refunds, fines, etc.


The source has to be both (i.e. copyrighted and released under the GPL) for it being "GNU GPL" in any meaningful way!

Please, take the time to actually read the license and the associated FAQ section:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

/Anders
Callsign: SE-AG
Aircraft (uhm...): Submarine Scout, Zeppelin NT, ZF Navy free balloon, Nordstern, Hindenburg, Short Empire flying-boat, ZNP-K, North Sea class, MTB T21 class, U.S.S. Monitor, MFI-9B, Type UB I submarine, Gokstad ship, Renault FT.
AndersG
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:20 am
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Callsign: SE-AG
OS: Debian GNU Linux

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

Postby KL-666 » Thu Jan 09, 2014 12:17 am

Now that atc's are changing to fgcom01, i think it is not a bad idea to publish used fgcom client and experience. I'll put mine here:

Fgcom: rev 46 qt 4.5.2
Experience: Good at EDDF and LFPO atc and UNICOM

Kind regards, Vincent
KL-666
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:32 pm

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

Postby jomo » Thu Jan 09, 2014 6:03 pm

Gijs wrote in Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:49 pm:Hi jomo, just did a couple of tests with FGComGUI and FGCom 3.0. Short summary (if people don't want to read all the details): FGComGUI works fine with FGCom 3.0, apart from the fact that the output is hidden in the GUI.

Thanks Gijs
never tried that on windows - so I started my very very old WinXP - and you are right --> it works as you say.

But sorry enough it still does not work on my normal PC on "Ubuntu". There I still get the famous
Code: Select all
Successfully parsed commandline options
 Failed to load file [../share/flightgear/special_frequencies.txt] !

i.e. the program is ok - but the fgcom3.0 must be started with:
cd /home/emmerich/FGCom/bin
chmod +x fgcom
./fgcom

instead of old
/home/emmerich/FGCom/bin/fgcom


Actually: That is what I belive should be no big problem to change!

With setting the Airport freq from within the FGCOMGUI you are right: That was the last agreement to add that to the selecting options - but was not completed. Sorry I forgot that - since then I seldom used to change the freq. when using FGCOMGUI by itself -- using FGCOMGUI controlled by FGFS and/or OpenRadar works fine! And you have all the reports inside the FGCOMGUI as used!
Thanks for finding 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 » Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:20 pm

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.
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



Fixed !
http://fgcom.flightgear.org is now hosted on a professionel hosting service.

A quick list of features on fgcom.flightgear.org server:
- use uLaw code - available on fgcom01 server
- use new apt.dat file - available on fgcom01 server
- 8.33 KHz frequencies are supported - not available on fgcom01 server
- Globals statistics available ( http://fgcom.flightgear.org/stat.php ) - not available on fgcom01 server
- Connection history ( http://fgcom.flightgear.org/history.php ) - not available on fgcom01 server
- Statistic per frequencies. e.g: http://fgcom.flightgear.org/details.php?freq=128650 - not available on fgcom01 server
- Statistic per users. e.g: http://fgcom.flightgear.org/details.php?callsign=F-JJTH - not available on fgcom01 server
- Statistic per users and frequencies. e.g: http://fgcom.flightgear.org/details.php ... req=122600 - not available on fgcom01 server
- List of users currently connected ( http://fgcom.flightgear.org ) - not available on fgcom01 server
- Recordable ATIS message (OpenRadar feature is on the way) - not available on fgcom01 server
- Playback ATIS message - not available on fgcom01 server
- Compatibility with the next MPMap project - not available on fgcom01 server
- JSon and XML feeds - not available on fgcom01 server
- echo test limited duration=30 seconds in order to avoid DDOS (in order to provide a better service) - not available on fgcom01 server

This server is the default one in FGCom 3.0 and FlightGear 3.0

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 Johan G » Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:04 pm

F-JJTH wrote in Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:20 pm:http://fgcom.flightgear.org is now hosted on a professionel hosting service.

Congratulations! :D

PS. Do I sense a bit of rivalry with the fgcom01.flightgear.org server? ;)
Low-level flying — It's all fun and games till someone looses an engine. (Paraphrased from a YouTube video)
Improving the Dassault Mirage F1 (Wiki, Forum, GitLab. Work in slow progress)
Johan G
Moderator
 
Posts: 5294
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:33 pm
Location: Sweden
Callsign: SE-JG
IRC name: Johan_G
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Windows 7, 32 bit

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

Postby F-JJTH » Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:08 pm

No rivalry, just take it as "informative" ;)
But for sure it's easier for user if there is only 1 server ! Let our user make their choice, we are in an Open Source project where "give the choice to the user" is an important part of the project.

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 » Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:25 pm

That is a very interesting discussion!
To that subject I placed some hours ago in viewtopic.php?f=68&t=21902#p198765 a first impression on the FGFS 3.0.0 with FGCom 3.0. May be I should repeat that here:
I was very pleased to get the Ubuntu 3.0.0 already today.
Startup and flying the first patterns with Concorde were nice - no major FGFS-problems
The only thing to set were color/shading problems - which could be solved initially by disabling Rembrandt (will look for more details later)

BUT I stopped further investigations due to severe problems with the integrated FGCom.
Can anybody help:
- How can I switch from server fgcom.flightgear.org to fgcom01.flightgear.org?
- How can I interface from the integrated FGCom to the standalone clients? Seems the port 10006 is not available any more!
- How can I set more options than just "Speaker Volume"?
- How can I monitor the whole FGCom working (more then just the 3 lines PopUp on screen - e.g. like we had in Command-Window and or FGCOMGUI).

- How can I set in in 3.0.0 "Equipment -> Radio Settings" e.g. the freq 127.320?

input 127.325 indicates in "Radio Settings" 127.325 and displays on screen 127.325
input 127.320 indicates in "Radio Settings" 127.32_ and displays on screen 127.325
input 127.32_ indicates in "Radio Settings" 127.32_ and displays on screen 127.325
--> input "_" means "blank" (I sometimes got different results - will test for details later later)

Can somebody pls help fast? I have no idea of how to support the ATC-events over the comming weekend!

As that looks there is no possibility at all for any competion, rivalry, or usage of two servers.

But let us wait what the answere is to above - todays session at EDDF was very promesing for the end of the FGCom project:
- most people come with the current design - no problem
- some came with old FGFS and new FGCom3 - and had no idea how to join into the conversation of the group
- 1 even came with FGFS 3.0.0 and integrated FGCom - he had no chance at all to join in.

So - I do not know - anybody has an idea how to solve these incompatabilites ??
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

PreviousNext

Return to FGCom

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests