Board index FlightGear Development New features

Vatsim in FG

Discussion and requests for new features. Please note that FlightGear developers are volunteers and may or may not be able to consider these requests.

Re: Vatsim in FG

Postby CJohn » Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:18 pm

Tuxklok wrote:Gotcha. So do you have a description of the protocol as you've discovered it so far available anywhere? I'd be kind of interested to see how they have gone about designing the network. I'm a C++/Python person myself, so I'd rather not try and pick it out of the pascal code. :D

No, the official specs of VATSIM FSD protocol is not publicly available. As far as I understood, FSD is quite old invention and it had since been heavily reworked by VATSIM, IVAO, FSFDT and other networks independently, thereby producing mutually incompatible derivatives. The best shot available would be svn this https://x-ivap.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/x-ivap , and take a look into src/XIvApp which contain pretty much of FSD internals, but you have to remember that this is NOT VATSIM FSD version, and some methods implemented there are incompatible with VATSIM (including software authorization). Currently, the best approximation to VATSIM FSD is FSoar. If you feel like digging deeply, feel free to ask me right here, I'll do my best to explain.

btw, I always thought that C++ developers who mastered its alien syntax could easily pick up much simpler and human readable Pascal syntax :lol:
Last edited by CJohn on Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
CJohn
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:10 am

Re: Vatsim in FG

Postby Tuxklok » Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:45 pm

CJohn wrote:btw, I always thought that C++ developers who mastered its alien syntax could easily pick up much simpler and human readable Pascal syntax :lol:


Haha, but the python developer in me has been way too spoiled by its simplicity....not to mention I'm lazy. :P

Might not be a bad idea to document the vatsim protocol as you go or get time/bored. With the protocol out in the open, maybe that'll be enough for them to leave the dark side of secrets and nda's and embrace openness and community...stranger things have happened. :P

cheers!
The Austria Scenery Project - more info
fg-scenery-tools - gitorious | videos
fgcomgui - Open source, cross platform, gui front end for fgcom. more info

More random musings and doings can be found on my personal site. (work in progress)
User avatar
Tuxklok
 
Posts: 1320
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:04 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Callsign: Tuxklok / N1292P
OS: GNU/Linux

Re: Vatsim in FG

Postby martin » Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:34 pm

Tuxklok wrote:
CJohn wrote:btw, I always thought that C++ developers who mastered its alien syntax could easily pick up much simpler and human readable Pascal syntax :lol:


Haha, but the python developer in me has been way too spoiled by its simplicity....


Reading sanely written Pascal code should be a no-brainer for almost every reasonably skilled software developer,

Martin.
FlightGear Scenery Release Manager
martin
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:03 am
Location: EDLN

Re: Vatsim in FG

Postby Tuxklok » Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:10 pm

Tuxklok wrote:not to mention I'm lazy. :P

^ you forget to quote the most important part :P

Seriously though, it would be easier for the guy who is deciphering the protocol and is familiar with it to do a write up on it. I was only curious if he had a written description somewhere or was interested in doing so if he ever had some spare time. Just a curiosity thing for me anyway, so no biggie either way.

cheers!
The Austria Scenery Project - more info
fg-scenery-tools - gitorious | videos
fgcomgui - Open source, cross platform, gui front end for fgcom. more info

More random musings and doings can be found on my personal site. (work in progress)
User avatar
Tuxklok
 
Posts: 1320
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:04 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Callsign: Tuxklok / N1292P
OS: GNU/Linux

Re: Vatsim in FG

Postby CJohn » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:43 pm

Tuxklok wrote:
Tuxklok wrote:not to mention I'm lazy. :P

^ you forget to quote the most important part :P
Seriously though, it would be easier for the guy who is deciphering the protocol and is familiar with it to do a write up on it. I was only curious if he had a written description somewhere or was interested in doing so if he ever had some spare time. Just a curiosity thing for me anyway, so no biggie either way.
cheers!

I believe that the source code is commented extensively enough to ease understanding, especially when you look at the tcpdump output. As I said, most of FSD communication goes over cleartext. Regarding writeup on the protocol, I think this will not be my priority as I'd like to encourage prospective vatsim explorers into using fpc/lazarus. 8)
CJohn
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:10 am

Re: Vatsim in FG

Postby lwimble » Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:34 pm

Folks,

The VATSIM folks would likely welcome the FG simulator onto it's network. There are many reasons the software is closed and also many reasons that they will want to approve the software before it's used on the VATSIM network. Among them are the fact that if the client software misbehaves, everyone on the network suffers. The VATSIM folks are a pretty reasonable group. If you want in, go and email the board of governors. I've found them to be accommodating to technical requests.

Now to tackle the Open Source/Closed Source problem. One of the main reasons that the VATSIM protocol is closed is because of a patent issue that arises out of the use of the voice codec that is used on the VATSIM network. It's call MELP, and the patent on it is not held by the VATSIM (I don't remember who holds it). In any event, there is likely no way to resolve that issue to the satisfaction of the GPL, so the implementation of VATSIM connectivity must remain a "plugin" or some other sort of outside program which is not directly linked to the FG executable.

I hope I have shed some light on this.

Larry
lwimble
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Vatsim in FG

Postby CJohn » Sat Jan 30, 2010 8:23 pm

lwimble wrote:Folks,
Now to tackle the Open Source/Closed Source problem. One of the main reasons that the VATSIM protocol is closed is because of a patent issue that arises out of the use of the voice codec that is used on the VATSIM network. It's call MELP, and the patent on it is not held by the VATSIM (I don't remember who holds it). In any event, there is likely no way to resolve that issue to the satisfaction of the GPL, so the implementation of VATSIM connectivity must remain a "plugin" or some other sort of outside program which is not directly linked to the FG executable. I hope I have shed some light on this.
Larry

Let me disagree with it. What VATSIM folks now protect with all that NDA secrecy has nothing to do with voice at all. They are protecting their own derivative of FSD protocol. Moreover, VVL (VATSIM Voice Library) is an entirely optional functionality and all activity on the network can be done without it. No voice data is transmitted over FSD protocol connections. The patent owner you were referring to is, to the extent of my knowledge, the GameSpy Industries. They provide VVL compatible product called RogerWilco, which is voice chat software suitable for online games. You can use RogerWilco to listen to (and interact with) any voice-capable manned ATC position in VATSIM, without being connected to VATSIM or even having an account there.
CJohn
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:10 am

Re: Vatsim in FG

Postby martin » Sat Jan 30, 2010 8:51 pm

Hi Larry,

lwimble wrote:The VATSIM folks are a pretty reasonable group. If you want in, go and email the board of governors. I've found them to be accommodating to technical requests.

Now to tackle the Open Source/Closed Source problem. One of the main reasons that the VATSIM protocol is closed is because of a patent issue that arises out of the use of the voice codec that is used on the VATSIM network. It's call MELP, and the patent on it is not held by the VATSIM (I don't remember who holds it). In any event, there is likely no way to resolve that issue to the satisfaction of the GPL, [...]


If the VATSIM folks are a pretty reasonable group of people, then I'd expect them to head out for a solution to their patent issue. The VATSIM vs. FlightGear case has already reached a considerable age, the folks at VATSIM have had plenty of time to plan and implement a replacement strategy in order to get rid of their patent-encumbered audio codec. BTW, they would have had a nice bouquet of (OpenSource) alternatives to choose from.

When FlightGear people earlier approached VATSIM, we felt like being avoided like the plague. And now, a couple of years later, as FlightGear is becoming more popular every month and M$FS development stagnates, the OpenSource side is asked to pay the bill for being neglected over all the years !?
BTW, I've approched VATSIM people about the idea of developing an alternative protocol option on the server side for use by FlightGear users, thus getting along nicely with GPL-covered clients. Do you think I got a single reasonable response ?

I understand and accept your point, nevertheless all this sounds to me as being a bad excuse for a bad attitude on the VATSIM side.

Regards, Martin.
FlightGear Scenery Release Manager
martin
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:03 am
Location: EDLN

Re: Vatsim in FG

Postby wookierabbit » Tue Feb 16, 2010 10:50 am

Is there anyway for FG to create its own VATSIM version?
-Wookierabbit (Founder, former CEO, and former webmaster of the original Virtual Star Alliance website)

Youtube site: http://www.youtube.com/user/Wookierabbit
VSA.

Contact either by PM or via my former website at http://www.starallianceorg.webs.com
User avatar
wookierabbit
 
Posts: 1221
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:44 am
Location: Dallas - Ft. Worth, TX
Callsign: ---805, ATC
Version: 191
OS: Windows

Re: Vatsim in FG

Postby CJohn » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:11 pm

wookierabbit wrote:Is there anyway for FG to create its own VATSIM version?

AFAIK, FlightGear has its own multiplayer capabilities, lacking ATC functionality however.
CJohn
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:10 am

Re: Vatsim in FG

Postby HHS » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:29 pm

CJohn wrote:AFAIK, FlightGear has its own multiplayer capabilities, lacking ATC functionality however.


Which lacking ATC functionality please?
Up, up and away
User avatar
HHS
 
Posts: 3625
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:09 am
Version: GIT

Re: Vatsim in FG

Postby Liam » Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:03 pm

Probably Vectors (WIP last I heard), and Automated ATC services which actually tell you the right things at the right times, without relying on real people. Perhaps there could be a way to temporarily turn off automated ATC services if someone wants to take over manually, and then on again when they leave, catering for the small population of FlightGear. I appreciate there is difficulties between Voice and Keyboard ATC's- using both at the same time is tricky (and probably impossible for Automated services).

I'd like to see the option to be ATC instead of pilot, on startup (Which would have its own menu, etc), instead of using an ATC "aircraft".- It would be more encouraged by the sim's built in capabilities, perhaps with its HUD and everything already built into the system, working using off-line/on-line data dependant on multiplayer status. Perhaps once it has all of this base material, it will be simple to work on, change and run seamlessly between user to user, with no add-ons. That way we would make ATC's the standard operations in FlightGear, rather than an optional (and buggy/confusing, for new members in particular) service. I find it more helpful to have things all in one place, and being told I already have it rather than having to download add-ons.

If we had such systems, there would be no need for VATSIM.

Just a few thoughts
Liam.
User avatar
Liam
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 4:33 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Callsign: Liam
Version: GIT
OS: MAC OS X

Re: Vatsim in FG

Postby redneck » Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:19 pm

Well, I imagine the atc aircraft could be added to the base package of a later release once they're completed. They're still WIP. They really aren't buggy anymore. As for the automated atc, MSFS seems to have a problem with that, and I'm not sure how we could do much better. I've noticed in FSX, I frequently find myself having to ignore vectors that would send me away from the airport, or too close to the airport to make my approach.
Call Signs: redneck, ATCredn (unspecified freq atc)
FGFSCopilot
FGFSCopilotATCEdition
System Specs
Model: Alienware M15x, OS: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit, RAM: 3 GB, CPU: Intel i3 quad core at 2.4 GHz, GPU: Nvidea GeForce GTX 460M 1.5 GB GDDR5
redneck
 
Posts: 3617
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Version: 240

Re: Vatsim in FG

Postby stuart » Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:43 pm

I recall using MSFS 2002 and being vectored into a mountain :)

I think automatic ATC is a pretty hard problem to solve, beyond pre-programmed SID/STARs etc.

-Stuart
G-MWLX
User avatar
stuart
Moderator
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 10:56 am
Location: Edinburgh
Callsign: G-MWLX

Re: Vatsim in FG

Postby CJohn » Tue Feb 16, 2010 4:37 pm

HHS wrote:
CJohn wrote:AFAIK, FlightGear has its own multiplayer capabilities, lacking ATC functionality however.

Which lacking ATC functionality please?

Those available in VATSIM, where you can interact with human controller.
CJohn
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:10 am

PreviousNext

Return to New features

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests