Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?

[Curtis O. <cur...@gm...>]

HI Chris,

Here are a couple quick comment in reply ...

My sense is that there are very few people who would outright oppose a
vatsim interface to flightgear.  I think most people would consider this is
a good thing.

Here is my question/concern.  If some developer gets approved by vatsim and
signs the appropriate NDA's and then builds an interface from vatsim to
flightgear, then sure, that could be an external "closed source" application
that bridges the communication gap between FlightGear and VATSIM.

But here's the problem.  Now anyone (good or evil) has a wide open, public,
unsecured route into the vatsim network.  The flightgear API's are open and
you can inspect all the code and structures.  So anyone could take the
vatsim<->flightgear interface and leverage it to interject any kind of
nonsense into the vatsim network.  This is exactly what vatsim is trying to
avoid by protecting their communication protocols.  As soon as they allow a
translator to be written with an open/published/documented protocol at the
other end ... this is the very next best thing for someone wanting to do
mischief.

Please notice: this isn't me being negative about vatsim, or being negative
about the idea of a vatsim interface for flightgear.  I'd personally love to
have it available one way or another.  But I'm trying to place myself in the
perspective of what the vatsim folks would think.  Hopefully I'm way wrong,
but if we lay it all out for them open and honestly up front so we aren't
trying to sneak something past them, what do you think they would say?

FlightGear doesn't have a binary plug in system so it's not possible for
someone to write a closed source plugin to implement the vatsim protocol.
 It would have to be done as an entirely open-source module within
FlightGear, or as an entirely separate external application that
communicates with flightgear through some network protocol.

So all that said, here's one more thing to ponder.  FlightGear is a
volunteer driven project.  The people that pitch in and do the work get to
decide what they will work on and how they will do it.  We can discuss
vatsim back and forth all day long, but until a volunteer steps forward
who's willing (and able) to build the vatsim interface to flightgear, and
who is willing to sign all the vatsim nda's, and who is willing to do
whatever discussion and negotiation and strategizing and design work that is
required to make the system function satisfactorily from the perspective of
both vatsim and flightgear ... until such a person emerges, really all we
can do is talk about it theoretically.

Best regards,

Curt.


On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Chris O'Neill wrote:

> [PREFACE:  I'm a FG end-user who's not a programmer, nor am I an
> intellectual property rights attorney.  My sole desire is to use FG as a
> "realistic" flight similator, as opposed to using it as a fun "game."
> Please consider the remarks below in that context.  Thanks!]
>
> On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 19:15 -0300, Victhor wrote:
> > VATSIM requires any developer to sign a NDA before having access to
> > their network, so it's not possible to make a open source client. SB747
> > was made before the NDA requirement, but I suppose sources can't be
> > released due to obvious licensing issues.
>
> I'll get to this in a moment, but first...
>
> > It seems it has been fixed so that it reports you as the aircraft you're
> > currently using, but I'm not sure.
>
> Just to be clear, sb747 hasn't been "fixed" to report the proper
> aircraft but, rather, a workaround has been found whereby you file your
> flight plan via simroutes.com and then once that's done you file a blank
> flight plan with sb747.  Since your simroutes.com flight plan contains
> the aircraft type, that's what is reported on VATSIM,
>
> Now, back to the whole licensing/NDA issue...
>
> IMHO, and with all due respect to those who might disagree, while the
> "ideal" would be that an FG<-->VATSIM "broker" (to use VATSIM's term)
> would be open source, I do not understand why this has to be mandatory?
> If VATSIM were saying that FG itself had to become closed-source for it
> to connect to their network, then I'd be in total agreement.  However,
> that's NOT the case.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but what VATSIM seems to be saying is that they
> don't want "just anybody" trying to connect to their network, hence the
> "only approved clients" policy, and in order to enforce that policy they
> want to be the only source for releasing the source code.  I'm not aware
> of them wanting to extract licensing fees (i.e. earn income) for access
> to the source code (right?), and it seems to me they're merely trying to
> protect the integrity of their network.  Is that so wrong?
>
> What we have here is an opportunity to take FG to a whole new level, and
> I'd *really* hate to see that opportunity rejected out-of-hand over this
> issue.  We say on one hand that FG is a "serious" flight simulation
> environment (as opposed to merely being a "game") and, yet, when
> presented with the possibility of linking FG to a "serious" air traffic
> controlled online flying environment we immediately reject the idea
> because a client to connect to that environment would not be open
> source?
>
> IMHO, the FG multiplayer environment will *never* match the realism and
> professionalism of air traffic controlled online flying that VATSIM has
> achieved.  Yes, we have a handful of MP ATC's (jomo, redneck,
> wookierabbit, and a few others), and those folks do a *fabulous* job.
> But they're just a handful, and those of us who are seriously flying
> under their direction are often overwhelmed by "gamers" who spawn into
> MP on the runways, ignore ATC directions, and otherwise disrupt (either
> accidentally or purposely) our efforts to mimick real-life flying under
> ATC control.
>
> By comparison VATSIM has *hundreds* of ATC's who must pass rigid
> certification requirements before they "go to work" on the network.
> VATSIM requires those who access the network to follow ATC directions,
> and failing to do so will get you booted from that network pretty
> quickly.  It's possible on VATSIM to fly across North America, or even
> transatlantic, and do the whole flight (including clearance and ground
> control) under air traffic control the entire time, while being passed
> to multiple controllers in the process.  I have listened to real-life
> ATC comms on liveatc.net and I have flown FG on VATSIM and, frankly,
> it's pretty hard to tell the difference between the two.
>
> So, while some of us may not like the idea of having to sign an NDA in
> order to develop an FG<-->VATSIM broker/client, the simple fact of the
> matter is this...  those of us who want to use FlightGear to fly online
> in a realistic and professional air traffic controlled environment
> *can't* currently do that in MP (and, IMHO, likely never will be able to
> do it), but we *can* do it in VATSIM.
>
> In closing, the squawkgear/sb747 "solution" is an exceptional "hack"
> that does work, but if we *really* want to get serious about providing
> FG users with the capability of using FG as a "serious" flight
> simulation environment, then IMHO we should give this a serious look.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Special Offer-- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE (a $49 USD value)!
> Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better
> price-free!
> Download using promo code Free_Logger_4_Dev2Dev. Offer expires
> February 28th, so secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsight-sfd2d
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> Fli...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
>



-- 
Curtis Olson:
http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/
http://www.flightgear.org -
http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/<http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/>