| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rabbitcancer
Joined: 28 Jul 2003
Posts: 308
Location: Innerleithen, Scotland
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 5:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | And still FSInn is compatible to any network now around, its the other networks that refuse FSInn, not a problem of adaptation. |
...and who are you???
| Quote: | | Dont talk about something you dont know. |
Fair enough - I hear things - but then, my hearing is failing lately...
With all due respect, I would like to see FSInn do well as I would for SB3.
My #1 priority is VATSIM.
Last edited by rabbitcancer on Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:19 pm; edited 6 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rabbitcancer
Joined: 28 Jul 2003
Posts: 308
Location: Innerleithen, Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The paradoxical nettle is that if you make your network or pilot client as interoperable as possible, you've eliminated one area of competetive advantage that you have had, but you've taken away one from the people you're sharing the space with. If your sole competetive advantage is software lock-in, you'll have issues down the road. If it's not your main advantage, then you're essentially swapping pieces with the others in a war of attrition which can be a win. |
This entire conversation is a paradoxical nettle.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jlharris
Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 4
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rabbitcancer wrote: | | Quote: | | And still FSInn is compatible to any network now around, its the other networks that refuse FSInn, not a problem of adaptation. |
...and who are you???
|
Is it just me or did anyone else add up that username: bfels has a good chance of being Benjamin Fels (FSDT developer)? But, who am I?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jcboliveira
Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 288
Location: Portugal
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rabbitcancer
Joined: 28 Jul 2003
Posts: 308
Location: Innerleithen, Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ah yes - thank you gents...
My photographic memory must be on the fritz...
There's much to be said about placing a nice nametag in your signature line...
Tony Robbins would have words with Mr. Fels... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jacaru
Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let me just add my 2 cents here...
First we should not forget that thanks to the disinterested effort of FSD & Squawkbox developers we are know having the fun we have. And also we should not forget that still today everything is running over the basic concepts & even over the same code at most part.
Right now we are not going in the same direction so great happenings like that last one are unlikely to repeat in this area. Maybe that is the reason why we are still running over old code that its clearly behind time.
SB3 development started independantly and not affiliated to any network back as i saw on one post in 2002. VATSIM involvement in this last part of development are mostly because of VATISM deviations to FSD protocol, restrictions, code reviews, and beta testing requirements and own interest because the outdated SB2.3.
Apart of the willingness of involved parties to support VATSIM, and the willingness of not involved parties to not support their own networks, there is an open and standard FSD protocol that i see no reason for it not to be supported. There are many small private network that could take benefit of SB3. There is an standard FSD server which can be tested and supported. And even some new interesting networks could arise because of SB3 availability.
Now if you tell me VATSIM should take all the benefit because of the involvement of VATSIM these last months, i dont think that matches the spirit of original developers thanks to which everything is like it is now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joel
Site Admin
Joined: 04 Aug 2002
Posts: 1895
Location: British Columbia, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jacaru wrote: | | ...there is an open and standard FSD protocol that i see no reason for it not to be supported. There are many small private network that could take benefit of SB3. There is an standard FSD server which can be tested and supported. And even some new interesting networks could arise because of SB3 availability. |
This is a myth. There is not really a "standard" FSD protocol. All FSDs in use right now vary slightly in the protocol they use. And this is a core problem with writing a client that can run on multiple networks. The FSD implementations are diverging farther apart as well. I see no reason why this divergence won't continue until writing a single client for multiple networks will be next to impossible.
Joel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luke
Joined: 04 Feb 2004
Posts: 357
Location: Roswell, GA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rabbitcancer wrote: | | There's much to be said about placing a nice nametag in your signature line. |
What someone says is usually more important than who says it. I find this most useful, as it allows the odd sensible thing I say not be sandbagged by my reputation preceeding me. Sometimes, this can work in reverse.
Cheers!
Luke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luke
Joined: 04 Feb 2004
Posts: 357
Location: Roswell, GA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the statement regarding IVAO compatability. I hope to see it, because I think such an approach will do wonders towards increasing the use of SB3 among users of all networks, and improving the pilot experience.
Based on your statements it looks like it was a program management decision not to support IVAO at 3.0, and eminently reasonable. Hopefully, the ability to connect to TeamSpeak will be on the list for 3.1.
You have a Sisyphean task ahead of you. 
Cheers! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nickio
Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:45 pm Post subject: Both |
|
|
If these were networks that could financially benefit from their customers (thank god they are not) there would be some pros. Perhaps the biggest one could be that the dominant network could buy the other one. What would that give us -> Lets see-
Vatsim:
Very good traffic in North America and moderate to heavy at certain times in Europe
IVAO:
Absolutely horrible or non-existant traffic in NA and nearly full or overpopulated Europe region. Also excellent Intercontinental flight consistency.
You put them together and you get exactly what everyone wants- LOTS OF TRAFFIC.
Ofcourse in our case, it is not of great interest to Vatsim to become one with IVAO.
On the other hand I think that if these 2 networks were to work together and have one Client, personally, I'de be one happy Pilot, with one angry family
I also think that if Asia was to get involved in this hobby, it would be a step forward for all of us.
Quote, critize, go ahead. This is a very good topic and I think that SB3 should dip in to IVAO and get those guys to dip in to Vatsim.
Thanks,
Nick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jacaru
Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joel wrote: | | jacaru wrote: | | ...there is an open and standard FSD protocol that i see no reason for it not to be supported. There are many small private network that could take benefit of SB3. There is an standard FSD server which can be tested and supported. And even some new interesting networks could arise because of SB3 availability. |
This is a myth. There is not really a "standard" FSD protocol. All FSDs in use right now vary slightly in the protocol they use. And this is a core problem with writing a client that can run on multiple networks. The FSD implementations are diverging farther apart as well. I see no reason why this divergence won't continue until writing a single client for multiple networks will be next to impossible.
Joel |
Theres an FSD server version 2052 that is the one around which much private networks use. I agree with you theres no standard per se, and that all the deviations is making it very hard to develop software for this hobby without having to go with one or another. The powers that be dont see it this way and use this restrictions and limitations to their own advantage. Its a pitty, because freeware development & freeware developers are not encouraged to do their stuff in this conditions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rabbitcancer
Joined: 28 Jul 2003
Posts: 308
Location: Innerleithen, Scotland
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I find this most useful, as it allows the odd sensible thing I say not be sandbagged by my reputation preceeding me. |
I admire the humility of this statement...However, anonymous quotes usually end up posted on the Fridge in my world...
Without getting dragged into the quagmire of technical details surrounding the various networks - or even the theoretical impact that supporting one exclusive network may have - I'll leave it at this. It would be wonderful if everything worked with anything in this world. As we have seen, this is not the case for reasons that are typically more political in nature. At the end of the day - if anyone here wants to see SB3 used on the network of their choice, the people they should be speaking to is the good folks at that network in question.
It is not Joel's responsibility to drive these initiatives with IVAO and others. This conversation is moot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jacaru
Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was surfing the IVAO forums and i read this (its back from august last year so maybe old news.
IVAO-SDT2:
" We`re not rejecting third party... in fact there are some third party on the software department main page... withing the aproved software of IVAO most of them are third party...
You can say it`s true we`re not accepting any third party, but that`s like you have already seen is only to protect IVAO members and IVAO network, having nothing to do with our own softwares at all.
In SB3 itself since I was SDD I was in contact with Joel, the problem with SB3 is that Joel is not willing to do the changes so it can work with IVAN network, altought he said he would provide for us the required stuff to make this brigde... and if he`s still interested I`m sure there will be no problem to have SB3 on our network."
"quote:Do you really see a chance for SB3 ?
I can say it's up to Joel... if he releases the connection module he said he would long time ago I don't see a problem... but user using SB3 should be aware multiplayer won't work properly, that's why I don't think much people would user it rather than IvAp."
"
quote: If my intervention may be of any help, I read on Squawkbox website (http://www.squawkbox.ca/) that SB3 was mainly developed for the VATSIM network, and not that much for IVAO because of IvAp current development.
yeah, it's true. Joel from the start of his development, for beeing a VATSIM user, aimed his development for VATSIM network, but Joel promissed that would be released for IVAO internal devs a source from the connection module so we can make SB3 compatible with IVAO."
More at the source (registered on IVAO forum required):
http://forum.ivao.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7689 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jacaru
Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| By the way, SB3 has been added to IVAO approved software list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dweese
Joined: 02 Nov 2002
Posts: 1720
Location: Belleville ON Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jacaru wrote: | | By the way, SB3 has been added to IVAO approved software list. |
How do you approve something that has not been approved by the guy who created it?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
