I think it will be more "atc"ish to have an independent app...
There is nothing to prevent you from using FlightGear in that very fashion.
Don't get me wrong, your idea is really not bad - but this has already been suggested various times in the past, and starting something from scratch is unnecessarily complicated and too much work.
It would be far better to look at existing code and projects to see how these could be adapted to your needs. You could for example do a forum or mailing list search (atc/radar client)to see what other people have discussed before.
Otherwise you are facing far more work than necessary.
While you are obviously taking cross-platform concerns into consideration, FlightGear and SimGear already solve many issues that one may face later on when developing such a program.
Just imagine how complicated this really is: at some point you may need to deal with map projections, parsing and creating XDR encoded multiplayer packets, adding a GUI and possibly even scripting?
You will need to parse the navigational databases, as well as scenery/airport data.
And that's not even all that is needed.
All of this is however already supported by FlightGear or SimGear.
Don't even think about what's happening when FlightGear eventually upgrades its multiplayer system, any separate tools will need to be separately updated.
I'm thinking to create some kinda support for two monitor which should be like a charm for atc, one screen is for atc second is the tower "look".
You are bringing up a "tower look", don't you think that whatever you end up doing in a program created from scratch will be far inferior to what FlightGear is capable of doing? Just keep in mind that FlightGear is already using a fairly mature scenery engine internally, you are very unlikely to create more compelling visuals in your program, I am afraid.
And if you should really be that skilled to prove me wrong, your time would definitely be better spent on improving FlightGear itself
The fact that FlightGear can now also be used as an ATC station is powerful in itself, all the infrastructure is already in place: XML dialogs, scripting, custom instruments, 3D scene rendering and you name it...
It would be far better to improve the existing platform, than create something completely new.
If you really find something is missing or needs to be improved, just write down what it is and get people to agree with you, so that these things can be added or fixed eventually.
Just take a look at the ATC scope discussion:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5932Obviously, the developers of the improved ATC scope are pretty responsive and actually ask for feedback, so if they can't add a particular feature but do consider it useful, it should be easy to convince developers to give us a helping hand.
I understand that with the recent talks on VATSIM, the ATC feature of FlightGear has gained significant momentum, but rather than having 2 or 3 groups of people develop distinct components without talking to each other, it would surely be better to coordinate the effort and determine those requirements that all related efforts have in common, to see how forces can be joined.
Also, you may want to take a careful look at the "OATCONS" discussion:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7054The real motivation for me is that the low usability of existing atc applications. I mean if we compare a client, lets say for vatsims usability with atc stuff within flightgear it relatively reduces the realism side of simulating things.
Don't you think that figuring out how to improve the usability of the ATC component in FlightGear would be far easier than creating something entirely new?