Re: [Mratc-developers] [my status]

[<aqu...@ya...>]

 --- Michael Ross <ht...@us...> wrote: 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Aquila Deus" <aqu...@ya...>
> 
> > Ummm... The problem is: The real radar system is not going to
> be
> > developed by us. So we need to know what interface the
> manufacturer
> > will provide. Is this possible, now?
> 
> Why can't we define the interface now (http, or whatever works
> best for us)?  Since we are coming first, we can define things
> how we want them.  If the FCC decides to implement our system,
> radar vendors will comply with our interface specifications.
> The interface needs to be doable for the radar vendors, but we
> do not need to bend over backwards (go out of our way) to build
> around the radar vendors.

OK!

> 
> > > > ATC: the only thing we can be sure that it has only one
> source
> > > of input and
> > > > output. But that's good enough for us to start working on
> :)
> > >
> > > What do you mean by "one source of input and output?"
> >
> > The flight management system. The ATC retrieve and send
> everything via it (and
> > only via it). By this method we may make the development of
> ATC easier, because
> > things in the flight management system such as communicating
> to radar or
> > flights are uncertain.
> 
> We will have to define an interface for simulation over the
> Internet, will we not?  As well as a production interface?  If
> you want to create your version of the flight management system
> (FMS) using a single, undefined input and output, that's fine
> with me.  Maybe it will work better than my idea of defined http
> interfaces for communication.

Ah no! It's not about http. My idea is just to seperate the ATC and the outside
environment, to make the development of ATC easier. I'm sure about what
communication protocol to use between ATC and FMS.

> 
> > One question: If our ATC only helps flights to avoid collision
> and let them
> > decide what course they follow (and there is no pre-defined
> course), we may not
> > need to manage the course change at all.
> 
> They need to ask permission for a course change so our FMS can
> make sure their desired course change will not put them in
> harm's way.  Once the coast is clear, we can give instruction to
> the flight to make the course change.
> 
> > Besides, if the flights decide the
> > course by itself, it may hit flights or objects which are not
> managed by our
> > ATC (we can know this from radar though), and the possibility
> may be bigger
> > than hitting managed flights. Are you sure to let the flights
> decide the course
> > by themselved? Isn't this too different from current ATC?
> 
> If obstacles are in the way, we guide the flights around them,
> but otherwise let the flights choose their own path.  We are in
> charge of short-term (within the next minute or so) navigation;
> the flights are in charge of long-term navigation.

But if so, the flights may not need the ATC. They should be able to detect
short-term problems, just like fighters... I have never heard two close
fighters hit each other.

> 
> > BTW I have a good news for you: I won't touch java anymore,
> until I get a fast
> > computer... It's too terrible!
> 
> LOL


=====
me = d2004xx = d2003xx = d2002xx


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com