Board index FlightGear Support Tools OpenRadar

Transponder over network

OpenRadar is a standalone radar screen which connects to the FlightGear multiplayer servers. It is currently being developed.

Re: Transponder over network

Postby jomo » Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:00 pm

Omega wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2013 8:19 pm:There is already a simple ruler feature for that but my main concern is that it doesn't look professional enough, there is a reason why they don't have center lines extending up to 100nm in vatsim or any other real life radar scope. I'd rather have the aircraft just proceed direct to the airport or a navaid and then be vectored for final at a good range for the ILS. If they are on a STAR that would be much better.

Do we really have to repeat that we want OpenRadar for FGFS users which are not professionals. So if someone means "it doesn't look professional enough" he may design a Radar for himself!
It really would be a pity if we loose the capability to start working with everybody - independent of looking professional or not! I want to be able to welcome a "wrightFlyer1903" as well as a 747 flown without Instrumet-Panels - simply controlled by HUD and AutoPilot!
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: 919
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: Mainz, Germany
Callsign: jomo jomoATC
OS: UBUNTU 18.4

Re: Transponder over network

Postby wagnerw » Mon Jun 03, 2013 6:14 am

Omega wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2013 8:19 pm:1. I may click "assign squawk" by mistake.
2. I may need to include additional instructions to the squawk assignment in the same message (e.g.: Reset transponder, squawk 0351 - Cleared to xxxx via x squawk 1234 - squawk 0123 and ident).
3. I may need to change to a different squawk code, either because the squawk code range values were incorrect or some other aircraft was already assigned the same squawk code.
4. An aircraft may be communicating via voice (FGcom, mumble etc). Therefore, sending the squawk code over text would be considered as something unnecessary.

In case (1) you can revoke the squawk code. although not telling the contact about it would be better.
I understand (2), in case (4) the text message would bring redundancy.
Case (3) would be a bug, because OR tracks which Squawks are in use.

I have another thing to ponder about: We don't have an auto text that includes squawk. Without the automatically sending of the squawk message, you would have to write 'squawk' many times in a shift.
We have different possibilities:
(a) set the squawk message into the chat input box, but wait for further editing by the ATC, before we send it
(b) add squawk to the auto texts (this would make everything difficult, as there are scenarios without squawking.

Maybe 100 NM is too far, but this feature exists by purpose, to allow an early alignment with the runway. As this feature came out of the community, I cannot change it easily. Please discuss it!

There is already a simple ruler feature for that but my main concern is that it doesn't look professional enough, there is a reason why they don't have center lines extending up to 100nm in vatsim or any other real life radar scope. I'd rather have the aircraft just proceed direct to the airport or a navaid and then be vectored for final at a good range for the ILS. If they are on a STAR that would be much better.

From my side, my personal target is not the maximum of professionalism. I would not care, to add features, that are useful and convenient in our environment, as long as the professional radars could implement it too. I want, that we attract many ATC-enthusiasts, let them have fun and give them a tool to make flying in FGFS more attractive. If we are close to the reality, the better.

OR is already very configurable. If you implement a very configurable application there is a big danger: Very soon, you can reach a state, in that everything is connected to everything and a minor change causes a lot of problems. Because of this danger, I am hesitating to fulfil all appearing wishes.

Now more specific to your request:
In the dialog to modify the extended centerlines, you can simply set the length to whatever length and you may use the button 'copy to all' to have this setting for the whole airport.
This should be at least a rather good workaround, if you don't work on too many different airports.

I didn't test squawking yet but thanks for letting me know.

Everything is described also on a wiki page: http://wiki.flightgear.org/OpenRadar:_Transponder
You can track the progress also on the change log page...

A good start into the week to everybody!

Wolfram
wagnerw
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 8:35 pm
Callsign: D-W794

Re: Transponder over network

Postby Omega » Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:59 pm

Possibility A works for me.
In the dialog to modify the extended centerlines, you can simply set the length to whatever length and you may use the button 'copy to all' to have this setting for the whole airport.
This should be at least a rather good workaround, if you don't work on too many different airports.

That works just fine for me as well.

BTW, since we are mentioning the extended centerlines and before I come up with anymore ideas I'd like to mention the possibility of adding multiple extended centerlines for more than one airport. This will allow maybe the possibility of providing top-down center services (VATSIM example) or approach vectoring assistance for multiple airports within one controller's approach sector (also happens in real life).
My idea is to add a dialog of some kind with a textbox that allows the controller to type the airports and their respective runways that he wants to see. E.g. EDDF 07R 07L,EDDK 14L,ELLX 06 . Or some other format.
Actually, the feature is already partly implemented with the visibility options field for fixes. Yes, this one:
Image
Therefore, the same textbox can be used.

I also had the chance to test out the new data tag mode, thanks for adding the feature.
The engine is the heart of an aeroplane, but the pilot is its soul.
User avatar
Omega
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:46 pm
Callsign: Star,EHAA_CT,MIA0176
IRC name: Omega
Version: GIT
OS: Vista,7,Ubuntu 10.04

Re: Transponder over network

Postby wagnerw » Tue Jun 04, 2013 8:41 am

I have changed already the squawk support, to prepare the text message and set it into the chat input box (instead of sending it directly). So you can modify it, send it or remove it by hitting ESC.

Omega wrote in Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:59 pm:BTW, since we are mentioning the extended centerlines and before I come up with anymore ideas I'd like to mention the possibility of adding multiple extended centerlines for more than one airport. This will allow maybe the possibility of providing top-down center services (VATSIM example) or approach vectoring assistance for multiple airports within one controller's approach sector (also happens in real life).
My idea is to add a dialog of some kind with a textbox that allows the controller to type the airports and their respective runways that he wants to see. E.g. EDDF 07R 07L,EDDK 14L,ELLX 06 . Or some other format.

OR is internally designed to work for one designated airport. There are many things to adapt to be able to switch between airports: Metar, Runway database, Standard routes, MP integration etc. I wonder if I find the time for this major change in the close future.
If you choose one of the major airports and do a regular service there, you will attract enough traffic, to not getting bored, I bet.

In the meantime, you may start two instances of OR. To make this easier, I will add a startup argument that allows to specify separate property files for needed especially for the ports. So you can create two shortcuts or batch files and start them easily.
I have not tested for how many instances this works. It depends on your machine, but assuming you use FGCOM, it will be hard to use more than 2 frequencies at the same time. The two instances need different ports for MP protocol and FGCOM. But it works.
wagnerw
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 8:35 pm
Callsign: D-W794

Re: Transponder over network

Postby Omega » Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:13 pm

Back to this thread I'd like to report a bug. I was controlling yesterday and a pilot came up he had the transponder future enabled. I assigned him squawk 2201, after he squawked that his altitude indicated -99.
Also, if I recall correctly -99 was indicated even before he was assigned a squawk code (he was squawking 7000).

Is this a known issue?
The engine is the heart of an aeroplane, but the pilot is its soul.
User avatar
Omega
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:46 pm
Callsign: Star,EHAA_CT,MIA0176
IRC name: Omega
Version: GIT
OS: Vista,7,Ubuntu 10.04

Re: Transponder over network

Postby wagnerw » Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:05 am

Mh. The issue is, that I had exactly one contact to test it. No it is not known yet. Seems to me that the transponder did not send an altitude.
In which data block layout it has been? Simulation mode, I guess
I will try to find this issue... Thank you
wagnerw
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 8:35 pm
Callsign: D-W794

Re: Transponder over network

Postby benih » Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:25 pm

Hello there,
sorry for resurrecting this old tread, but is there any known implementation of the KT76C out there i can peek on?

In the c182s repo there is a incomplete nasal implementation from
Code: Select all
Gary Neely aka 'Buckaroo'
but it only handle cockpit visulas at the moment.
benih
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 9:34 am

Re: Transponder over network

Postby benih » Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:39 pm

Hi there,
i managed to make the transponder work, at least in ATCPie (see https://github.com/HHS81/c182s/tree/xpdrMP)
It seems that the OpenRadar implementation may be still buggy.
benih
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 9:34 am

Previous

Return to OpenRadar

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests