A few of our developers at www.AvHistory.org have been watching Flight Gear evolve.Would adding a combat capability be out of scope for Flight Gear or would we be stepping on anyone

>A few of our developers at www.AvHistory.org have been>watching Flight Gear evolve.>>Would adding a combat capability be out of scope for Flight>Gear or would we be stepping on anyone

>>>There are a few developers who feel very strongly that FlightGear should be a civilian sim only. Even if most of the rest of the developers are ok with adding combat related features, that means there would be some tricky politics to navigate.That

Water bombing and fire would be cool for bush ops!If combat capabilities are not in the interests of the FG developers, would they accomodate the code having hooks to an add-on that would supply the needed functionality? That way, there is still a single FGFS that is a civilian simulation, but a combat extension can be downloaded and installed for those that want the functionality. Just as FGFS can support different flight dynamics models, I would envision combat-related engines being pluggable into the system.Peter http://bfu.avsim.net/sigpics/PeterR.gifBFU Forums ModeratorRenegade/Seawolf Design Group (RSDG)[table border=2" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1][tr][td][table border=0" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0][tr][td bgcolor=#6f0000]http://bfu.avsim.net/sigpics/logo75t.gif[/td][td align=center" bgcolor="#FFFFF6]Bush Flying Unlimited"At home in the wild"Looking for adventure? Come join us! * [link:bfu.avsim.net|Web Site] * [link:www.cafepress.com/bfu,bfu2,bfu3,bfu4|BFU Store] * [link:bfu.avsim.net/join.htm]Join!][/td][/tr][/table][/td][/tr][/table

I'd like to see this added as civilian sims are extremely boring to me.I have extensive practice building FM's in open plane and had downloaded flight fear to check out the physics engine. If it's as good as what I'm reading, I'd like to move over to flight gear. Heck, if there was a combat sim add on, and the physics engine is realistic enough, you'd probably wind up with the whole open plane community moving over. Those guys are prolific developers as there's over 120 aircraft they've developed for Fighter Squadron, ranging from WWI aircraft to early jets (along with many moveable and driveable ground units). There's also one incredible 3D and physics programmer in the group.What are the issues and what is the reasoning behind this objection to military sims?I'm sorry, but I don't get the reasing behind this. It's ok for people to make money off a commercial combat sim, but not ok for those that have a passion for history to to work on these things at no charge?

> What are the issues and what is the reasoning behind this objection to> military sims?The objections are political, and along the lines you might expect.Some people, I suspect, also worry about our nice community beingflooded by l33t, 513rra H0t31 air j0xeys who constantly whine aboutthe multiplayer servers being down. :)> I'm sorry, but I don't get the reasing behind this. It's ok for people> to make money off a commercial combat sim, but not ok for those that> have a passion for history to to work on these things at no charge?Please don't misunderstand Curt. We absolutely don't rejectsubmissions for military aircraft, and we have many modelled already.The trepidation shown has been about *exclusively* military featureslike gun damage code, etc...Even those are probably fine with most of us (with me, certainly), solong as some level of separation is maintained. I've made the pointin the past that 90% of what is needed for FlightGear to be a firstrate ACM sim is needed for the consumer side anyway.Andy

>Even those are probably fine with most of us (with me,>certainly), so>long as some level of separation is maintained. I've made the>point>in the past that 90% of what is needed for FlightGear to be a>first>rate ACM sim is needed for the consumer side anyway.By seperation, what do you mean? What would be the fear of mixing the two? I'm trying to understand.

The terrain engine is quite basic in flightgear at the moment - no multitexturing, blending of ground textures etc. It makes you realise how optimised commercial flight sims are. I would like to see a new terrain engine developed before combat capability - something "blue sky" that doesn't try to emulate current commercial sims.But the great thing about open source is that if you want to do it, do it!Neil.

> By seperation, what do you mean? What would be the fear of mixing> the two? I'm trying to understand.I'm not sure any of us are 100% sure how this should best be done.But as I mentioned, one thing I'm sure no one wants is to be shot downwhile on short final in a 747-400, or for their touch and goes to beinterrupted by a strafing P-51.The development might be 90-99% common between the two softwareprojects, but the administration is going to be worlds apart; and noone has given much thought to the problem yet.Andy

We could implement some sort of invisible boundary box.As long as you fly with your military airplane in this boxyou can use your weapons, but if wou leave that box your weapons get useless. :)This boundary box could for example mark a conflict area.

>But as I mentioned, one thing I'm sure no one wants is to be shot down>while on short final in a 747-400, or for their touch and goes to be>interrupted by a strafing P-51.This sounds like a multiplayer issue rather than a flight sim issue. The multiplayer host should define what's legal or not for all the clients connecting to it: no weapons, all weapons, guns-only, etc.Peter http://bfu.avsim.net/sigpics/PeterR.gifBFU Forums ModeratorRenegade/Seawolf Design Group (RSDG)[table border=2" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1][tr][td][table border=0" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0][tr][td bgcolor=#6f0000]http://bfu.avsim.net/sigpics/logo75t.gif[/td][td align=center" bgcolor="#FFFFF6]Bush Flying Unlimited"At home in the wild"Looking for adventure? Come join us! * [link:bfu.avsim.net|Web Site] * [link:www.cafepress.com/bfu,bfu2,bfu3,bfu4|BFU Store] * [link:bfu.avsim.net/join.htm]Join!][/td][/tr][/table][/td][/tr][/table

>> By seperation, what do you mean? What would be the fear of>mixing>> the two? I'm trying to understand.>>I'm not sure any of us are 100% sure how this should best be>done.>But as I mentioned, one thing I'm sure no one wants is to be>shot down>while on short final in a 747-400, or for their touch and goes>to be>interrupted by a strafing P-51.As Peter said this would be a multiplayer issue and would be considered bad etiquette. Most modern Windows sims have the ability to boot players. If you take a page from MS, the guns and damage boxes would be in a separate file. Without one, the 747-400 wouldn

>As Peter said this would be a multiplayer issue and would be>considered bad etiquette. Most modern Windows sims have the>ability to boot players. If you take a page from MS, the guns>and damage boxes would be in a separate file. Without one, the>747-400 wouldn

It seems to me that this whole discussion on seperate 'product lines' or projects is rather moot. All that needs to be done is create a Combat library of code that enables air combat. then, people download FG and if they want air combat they download the Combat library. When someone starts a multi-player server it has a 'version' checker that determines if the client is running standard FG or Combat FG. If the server does not allow Combat then the client will only be able to join in regular FG mode. It's kinda like the Desert Combat mod to Battlefied 1942 or CounterStrike mod to Half-Life. This way the core FG effort continues un-affected by the Combat project while those who wish to contribute to the Combat project can update it as needed to fit the core FG effort.

>> Then perhaps we could figure out how to add the really hard core military stuff like explosions and guns and bombs...I'd like to see explosions et al included in Flightgear not necessarily for the military applications, but to make aircraft crashes more obvious. At the moment a crash seems to be represented by a short burst of static (with the aircraft engine still going), and the aircraft coming to a stand-still (whether it be buried in a mountainside or on the side of the runway). When I cut my engines at 20,000 ft it should be made absolutely clear when I slam into the ground that this plane is not going up in the air again. There should be at least one flaming bouncing tyre. A nicely modelled propane fireball would be nice with bits of fuselage flying off at random trajectories based on the speed and direction of impact, but I'd settle for the plane model being replaced with a 10-frame fiery texture map on a couple of triangles.Greg