Re: [Opengc-devel] Linux Hardware

[Manuel B. <li...@va...>]

On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 01:36:40PM -0700, Gene Buckle wrote:
> > > Well keep in mind that these guys are hackers at heart and if you can show
> > > them a need for other platform drivers they'll be happy to comply.
> > >
> > I talked with some of them, but doubt if a market of one is going to make
> > anyone do somersaults... And the use of FG and open source stuff for
> > building cockpits is either not reported or not happening... I suspect the
> > latter

Well... I do some home cockpit building (and its flightgear exclusivly :)
A friend and I were working on a fully enclosed B744 cockpit. But due to
space constraints and a few other reasons, we had to cancel that. Now he
has built a Piper Cub cockpit (that runs flightgear of course)
and I have parts like yoke, rudder pedals and throttle of our old 744
cockpit here at home. 
 
> The lack of "amateur" use of FG is most likely due to the high barrier of
> entry (you _must_ know what you're doing) and the lack of cockpit oriented
> third party infrastructure.
> 
> For instance, there is a LOT of cockpit support software available for
> MSFS that's made by Project Magenta.  It's pretty high dollar software
> too.  However, it sells itself because of how easy it is to configure and
> hook up to MSFS via network, etc.  There are other packages out there that
> offer similar features for free as well.  OpenGC provides a small subset
> as you know.

I totally agree with you on the way overpriced Project Magenta. They
even want you to purchase two licenses if you want their software for both 
pilot and copilot (unless you use something like VGA splitting.)


> For FlightGear to really take off as a core tool for the home cockpit
> builder, it has to be more widely supported by the user community.

I agree. However since most development goes on on unix/linux, and most
people working on it are of the "unix kind" (which is good :), 
setting fgfs up on windows, esp. if you want to use CVS, is not that easy
for what the average MSFS pilots are used to.

> One thing that would prove to be a big boost to FlightGear's popularity
> would be FSUIPC support.  All you'd have to do is set up a shared memory
> segment that Pete could get at with his software, and you'd instantly
> obtain 100% compatibility with all those cool add-ons that the MSFS folks
> enjoy.  Even the Project Magenta stuff would work right out of the box for
> the most part.

I don't think FSUIPC is necessary. there's enought ways of getting data
in and out of fgfs. 

I don't see why Project Magenta (being expensive $-wise) should "profit"
from fgfs (being free).

Then there is the "FSUIPC now costs money thing"...

I'd rather stay with opensource.

When I post in a german home cockpit builders forum that I visit
regularly, all my posts have a signature line pointing to flightgear. :-) 


Regards,
Manuel