Board index FlightGear Development New features

[Serious Request] Making flightgear combat capable.

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

[Serious Request] Making flightgear combat capable.

Postby robelt » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:13 pm

Alright the Idea is basicaly to make flightgear combat capable with AI Aircraft and over MP.
Approches
    Set left and right wings to torn, apply smoke effect, add external tanks and make the weights of both tanks to some huge random number.Creating a MAY DAY Effect, If some conditions are met
Now things I coun't achive is that if an AI aircraft is FOX2ed upon I want it to know it was shot. Because we all know that the FOX2 doen't do a thing.
I know that FG doesn't like the words "distroy, FOX2KILL, dogfight.." and all those awsome words..So just for fun if some one helps me by just giving me some hints or a block of pseudo code or just an Idea..please help me out.I will update you if I find any thing.
Pilot : "Bogey1 is in range..."
Bogey1 : "The Pilot is in range..."
robelt
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:01 am
Location: Angels 30
Callsign: Nemesis
Version: 2017.3.1
OS: Linux - Cyborg Hawk

Re: [Serious Request] Making flightgear combat capable.

Postby PINTO » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:22 pm

Flightgear is combat capable. You can either use the bombable addon, or use the OPRF system ( see http://opredflag.com, though note you'll have to upgrade your flightgear if you want to fly in events.)
Actively developing the MiG-21bis (github repo) (forum thread) (dev discord) (fg wiki)

http://opredflag.com is an active flightgear dogfighting community (using a system that isn’t bombable)
User avatar
PINTO
 
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:28 pm
Callsign: pinto
Version: 2016.3.0
OS: Win10

Re: [Serious Request] Making flightgear combat capable.

Postby Hooray » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:08 pm

The best way forward with something controversial like this is to simply proceed without expecting any kind of "endorsement" or support from the core development group - pretty much along the lines of what flugh did with his bombable addon. It is entirely optional and does not require any kind of explicit support, it's "just" a MOD so to speak.

In other words, $FG_ROOT/Docs and the FlightGear wiki are your best bet to make heads and tails of the property tree, XML, GUI dialogs and FlightGear scripting.

When, or if, the need arises to make core level changes, you would be better off having compelling functionality (and a valid use-case) that is not specific to just specific to simulating combat.

Speaking in general, it would be a good idea to read up on the history of this debate in the archives (forum/devel list) to form an informed opinion and come up with an approach that isn't doomed to fail.

Technically, there is tons of combat related functionality that even a non-combat sim would benefit from - unfortunately, many people don't seem to realize that and tend to get lost in all sorts of pointless debates. But the truth is that if people stopped working on combat specific features and instead focused on generic building blocks that can be used accordingly, all parties would benefit.

And that is the primary reason why the most successful combat related addon for FlightGear in existence today is indeed based on concepts and technologies that don't have anything at all to do with the combat use-case. Namely, the property tree, XML and Nasal scripting.
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11376
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: [Serious Request] Making flightgear combat capable.

Postby Richard » Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:42 pm

robelt wrote in Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:13 pm:Alright the Idea is basicaly to make flightgear combat capable with AI Aircraft and over MP.


The bombable addon gives you AI aircraft that will engage you and can be targetted. Bombable also works over MP. However adding bombable to an aircraft is a task that needs to be performed. see http://wiki.flightgear.org/Bombable

Operation Red Flag (OPRF) is the Flightgear Military Community. This is only for MP, although there are some target practice scenarios available. There are weekly and monthly events, and sometimes just a few pilots get together to practice engagements. See http://opredflag.com/ - sometimes the engagements are on the OPRF private server.

Only certain craft are allowed to be flown on missions; these are available from http://opredflag.com/forum_threads/2412191 - there is a strict code of conduct that you must adhere to; which includes never engaging civilian; and not engaging or other military aircraft without prior agreement.

Fighters

* F-15
* F-14
* Mirage 2000
* JA-37 Viggen
* Mig-21

Rotary wing
* UH-1
* CH-53E
* SH-60J

Other military

* B-1b
* KC-137R
* KC10A
* SR-71
* AN-225

OPRF also has a discord server; details of which can be found on the main site (http://opredflag.com/) - it is usually through Discord that spontaneous engagements happen, events tend to be use the main site.
Richard
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:17 pm
Version: Git
OS: Win10

Re: [Serious Request] Making flightgear combat capable.

Postby robelt » Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:29 am

Thanks all, and a deep appology for not researching first. I just wanted to have fun while coding it not to shoot planes for living.
Pilot : "Bogey1 is in range..."
Bogey1 : "The Pilot is in range..."
robelt
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:01 am
Location: Angels 30
Callsign: Nemesis
Version: 2017.3.1
OS: Linux - Cyborg Hawk

Re: [Serious Request] Making flightgear combat capable.

Postby Bomber » Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:21 am

Robelt... a combat sim requires rules, of design, functionality, of engagement etc... and possibly one of those rules could well be the separation of combat from civilian aviation by using different servers, quite frankly even different eras of combat planes can't compete in the same sky together,.... In effect a combat 'fork' of flightgear such that pointless debates don't take place and yet at the end of the day we all know we're working towards a better flightgear experience with code/building blocks that can be transferred. However the mention of a 'fork' and combat would in my opinion just create a hostile environment without a change in attitude by the core development group who have in the past made it quite clear that combat functionality will NEVER be implemented into flightgear. In effect they've created the requirement for those interested in combat to work on the periphery creating addons as opposed to building blocks that all could use.

I genuinely can't see how with the present set up it could be done in a harmonious way. If the core development group were interested in stopping this constant circle of fruitless combat functionality debates that occur they'd need to change their attitude towards it. They'd need to talk to combat interested people and understand their requirements and as a show of faith implement a simple change to flightgear, it doesn't have to be much, but they would have to welcome combat functionality. Then maybe we'd see people more interested in creating these building blocks that Hooray talks about as opposed to thinking that "well if anything I do that has the whiff of combat about it can never be implemented, what's the point"

It's too much to expect those that are willing to work on combat functionality... to be told 'cake tomorrow'.... it's too much to expect them to work on functionality that benefits both civil and combat flight simming if they NEVER see anything that's soley for combat being implemented.

A progression towards combat has to be see to be occuring and over the last 15 years that's simply not been the case.

Simon (expecting the usual hostility) Morley
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: [Serious Request] Making flightgear combat capable.

Postby Richard » Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:26 am

Bomber wrote in Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:21 am:If the core development group were interested in stopping this constant circle of fruitless combat functionality debates that occur they'd need to change their attitude towards it.


The key point here that most of the core devs have no interest or wish to provide any combative functionality and aren't going to work on it, regardless of how often they are asked. It is the constant asking that creates the fruitless circle - as it is well known that the answer will be a loud NO.

However there is functionality that can go into the core that is equally applicable to combat - I've not seen anything blocked or removed; it's just that most of the core devs aren't going to do this. I've recently been looking into how to publish AI models over MP, this is something that has wider applications. Extensions to the MP server (for private servers), supporting scenarios, running simulations of missiles etc, is somewhere that changes may be required.

Most of the work that I did to the MP protocol - extending the number of properties available and improving the efficiency of transfer came out of the need for the OPRF aircraft to transmit more properties - but is something that has much wider applications. Equally Emesary developments are coming along nicely - we should soon (next few months) see Emesary used on the OPRF fleet to allow models to communicate with each other in a more structured way to provide chaff, flares, radar, missiles, bombs, link16, damage etc.

The excellent work by Leto and Pinto to add and improve the OPRF models shows that large steps can be made without needing core changes. As an example damage is largely implemented using the core failure system[1].

It seems to me that the core code has a good part of the support that is needed - and that actually there are lots of building blocks already available.

---------------------
[1] this generally doesn't include aerodynamic damage, but that is something that is entirely needing to be implemented in the models anyway.
Richard
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:17 pm
Version: Git
OS: Win10

Re: [Serious Request] Making flightgear combat capable.

Postby Thorsten » Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:01 pm

If the core development group were interested in stopping this constant circle of fruitless combat functionality debates that occur they'd need to change their attitude towards it.


Translation: You'd stop complaining if we'd actually do as you told us to do.

Yeah, probably true, but still no deal. Why would people work on something they do not want to have in the sim?
Last edited by Thorsten on Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11191
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: [Serious Request] Making flightgear combat capable.

Postby Bomber » Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:02 pm

Nothing you've said there is contentious Richard... I agree there is no lack of will to work on combat functionality that can also be used by civil flyers within this community. And some bloody good work is being done but it's at the periphery of flightgear because of what can best be called the lack of will by the core development team or at worst their passive aggressive attitude to combat functionality...

There's simply no point in Hooray holding out any olive branch or saying that people ought to be working on building blocks of code rather that focusing on combat functionality if as we know there's NO chance of combat being a part of flightgear... Combat is ALWAYS going to be on the periphery, so asking someone to create building blocks of code that works for civil as well as combat is rather pointless if at the end of the day the combat functionality that has NO chance of being included has to always interact with this new building block from the periphery using an addon mod.

Now it might be that some of the OPRF code gets eventually added by the core development team if they see it of benefit to the civilian flight sim. But that doesn't mean that you didn't focus on combat functionality as opposed to building blocks of code. You wrote code to meet a functionally for combat not in the core code, I'd like to see turret gunners as AI code but unfortunately unlike pilot code that can be re-used in civil planes... and gunner is a gunner and has no place in civil sim and as such NO chance of this type of code being included.

Until those interested in combat of ALL eras within flightgear come together as a development group.... I can't see anyway forward other than to work on the periphery.

As the [1]..... that's what I've spent years doing.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: [Serious Request] Making flightgear combat capable.

Postby Bomber » Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:27 pm

A passive aggressive response.

Thorsten wrote in Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:01 pm:
If the core development group were interested in stopping this constant circle of fruitless combat functionality debates that occur they'd need to change their attitude towards it.


Translation: You'd stop complaining if we'd actually do as you told us to do.

Yeah, probably true, but still no deal. Why would people work on something they do not want to have in the sim?
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: [Serious Request] Making flightgear combat capable.

Postby Thorsten » Fri Sep 15, 2017 1:41 pm

Well, let's recap the background.

A few year back, you had your own project (T4T) with the aim to simulate air combat. You decided to use FG as a platform for a fork, which went fine to the point that many here (including myself) gave you pointers how to do certain things, but became problematic when you told the core team what you want to have for your fork, but they decided to continue to work on FG rather than supporting T4T according to your specs.

T4T then broke up over angry internal disagreements - presumably your collaborators didn't do what you told them either and vice versa.

Since then, you keep demanding that FG absolutely has to provide what T4T envisioned - by... telling the FG developers what they should do.

There've been a number of combat mods in FG, the most prominent being bombable and OPRF, and I think it's fair to say that FGUK leans towards military aviation. It's been suggested a couple of times that you join forces with one of them - at least for bombable, you pretty much derided the approach, and I seem to recall you got banned from FGUK, you seem to have no standing with OPRF either.

So there's that.

When exactly do you reach the point where you realize that telling others what they have to do while blasting everyone who doesn't 100% agree with you is a bad strategy?

It's your active-agressive strategy which got you where you are, not any passive-agressive response. Did you never wonder why all combat related development happens without you? Did it never occur to you that you would never ever dream of working on what I tell you to, and hence that you can not expect me to do it?
Last edited by Thorsten on Fri Sep 15, 2017 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11191
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: [Serious Request] Making flightgear combat capable.

Postby Richard » Fri Sep 15, 2017 1:45 pm

Bomber wrote in Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:02 pm:Until those interested in combat of ALL eras within flightgear come together as a development group.... I can't see anyway forward other than to work on the periphery.


It doesn't matter at all whether or not something is in the core or an addon - the only importance is does it work well. FlightGear is really a simulation platform and has many ways of being extended; moreso than the other sims that don't have a decent architecture and need to have support for certain things in the main code base.

There are certain things that work better as addons, and with the work I've been doing on Emesary FlightGear is in a better position to have integration of addons than it was previously - simply because Emesary removes inter-dependencies.

I could see that a turret gunner is a valid thing to add; generally if something is on an aircraft it is fair to consider an accurate model must simulate all elements; even those that are on military craft and are part of their purpose. An example is the that F-15, it can carry missiles and have a radar system - that's part of the aircraft. It's when these are used against other players that the majority of the core developers find undesirable.

I'm not really aware of why it is difficult to add turret gunners, why is it any different to the RIO on the F-14? What support is missing - can you expand on this and maybe we can see if a solution can be found[1]

-------------------------
[1] I've read various discussions in the past, so forgive my laziness
Richard
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:17 pm
Version: Git
OS: Win10

Re: [Serious Request] Making flightgear combat capable.

Postby Bomber » Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:05 pm

Richard it was just an example of what would be acceptable to be included into the core code of FG and what has been said had NO chance...

I'm in agreement with you that we can hack flightgear via jsbm xml, extended xml or nasal to our hearts content to do almost anything we can conceive...

My argument would be it's not very elegant and possibly reduces the performance of what we're attempting to do, that's all....

I'm not up on the F-14 and RIO, so don't know how to answer the question of what support is missing..... we could talk about what functionality would be required to do such a task as AI gunnery, and see what support is missing. I suggest it's not in the remit of this topic and any topic created would possibly based on past experience become very incendiary very rapidly due to the not so passive aggression that is displayed towards those that wish to talk and develop combat functionality in the open as part of this community.

It's why I said things will only change (if at all) once those interested in combat development come together... a safety in numbers thing after all no one wants to continuously have arguments with Thorsten, it's tiring.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: [Serious Request] Making flightgear combat capable.

Postby Richard » Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:22 pm

Bomber wrote in Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:05 pm:I'm in agreement with you that we can hack flightgear via jsbm xml, extended xml or nasal to our hearts content to do almost anything we can conceive...


Having a set of core code that is designed to be extended isn't hacking[1] - in fact my view is that it is a good architecture to have an extensible system and add to it.

Bomber wrote in Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:05 pm:My argument would be it's not very elegant and possibly reduces the performance of what we're attempting to do, that's all....


Normally the rendering consumes so much of the available resources that the performance improvement by recoding Nasal in C++ is not going to make much difference. What does make a difference is the method taken, so optimise the algorithms and processes first- you will likely gain more than the few microseconds by switching to C++.

Bomber wrote in Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:05 pm:we could talk about what functionality would be required to do such a task as AI gunnery, and see what support is missing. I suggest it's not in the remit of this topic


It seems to fall nicely into this topic. If it doesn't start another one or email me.

-------------
[1] Depending on how you implement it of course;
Richard
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:17 pm
Version: Git
OS: Win10

Re: [Serious Request] Making flightgear combat capable.

Postby Thorsten » Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:38 pm

It's why I said things will only change (if at all) once those interested in combat development come together... a safety in numbers thing after all no one wants to continuously have arguments with Thorsten, it's tiring.


*sigh*

Still blaming pretty much everyone else? You've pretty much had what you suggested years ago - you threw it away. You've even had me willing to help you with things - you threw it away.

What's different now? The moment you start to team-play is the moment you'll find me starting to care about what you might want - it's as simple as that.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11191
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Next

Return to New features

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests