MAIW Client Based Server

Post all questions and problems with Matrix in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Woogey
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
Posts: 161
Joined: 04 Jul 2012, 18:23
Version: P3D

MAIW Client Based Server

Post by Woogey »

Stupid Question: Would the Group consider offering a client based server in the same way that Just Flight has moved Ultimate Traffic to with the Ultimate traffic Live Product? Or in keeping with the freeware requirement, maybe get with the developer of UTL to offer a version of the MAIW packs to UTL for free?

I am pretty sure I know the answer already, but I thought I would throw it out there. It could be as simple as enabling a UTL compatibility option in Matrix. With this item checked, Matrix could then look for the UTL install path, and place the Aircraft models and Flightplans there instead.

Using the Server method really frees up resources and keeps the Framerates high, more importantly allows the Ai to be visible in multiplayer.

-Woog

User avatar
Firebird
MAIW Admin
MAIW Admin
Posts: 10157
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:04
Version: FS9
Location: EGLL

Re: MAIW Client Based Server

Post by Firebird »

Just so I am clear here, you want to know if we would consider forcing everybody to buy a $45 product. Is that correct?
Steve
_______________________________________________________
Image
Quid Si Coelum Ruat
_______________________________________________________

User avatar
petebramley
MAIW Developer
MAIW Developer
Posts: 1166
Joined: 17 Jun 2007, 16:05
Version: P3D
Location: EGBG

Re: MAIW Client Based Server

Post by petebramley »

I think you may well have answered your own question with the very first phrase of your post !!
Pete B
Retired and busier than ever !!

User avatar
Woogey
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
Posts: 161
Joined: 04 Jul 2012, 18:23
Version: P3D

Re: MAIW Client Based Server

Post by Woogey »

No no, Firebird, just a compatibility option. Whereby if you check the box in the Matrix Ui it would then deactivate the Flightplans in the Simulator, instead relying on flights that would be loaded into the sim Via Ultimate Traffic Live. This would of course require Someone from MAIW to get in contact with the Developer of UTL in order to provide them with the Flightplans to be installed into their program. All UTL does is Offload the work that Prepar3D/FSX has to do in order to initiate and track all the Ai that is running around. Basically it gives you full airports with a 15-20FPS boost.

In order to get this FPS boost UTL suggests turning your default Traffic sliders to off which really does boost frame rates. However, as we all know, this then kills the MAIW aircraft. The Unfortunate reality is that we do not a Traffic slider for Military aircraft. UTL is a GREAT Addon that I highly suggest. I was just hoping that the Gents here at MAIW would consider offering a convenient solution for those of us who have purchased that product to be able to maintain those higher frame rates.

Another benefit to the Server system besides higher FPS, is that everyone sees the same Ai. In multi-player, instead of empty tarmacs, the Ai is injected into the sim for everyone who has UTL running. Those aircraft are now active in everyone's sim at the same time. If you are sitting behind me at the threshold while I wait for an Ai to land, you see the same Ai aircraft touchdown in real time.

-Woog

User avatar
Firebird
MAIW Admin
MAIW Admin
Posts: 10157
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:04
Version: FS9
Location: EGLL

Re: MAIW Client Based Server

Post by Firebird »

I thought that is what you meant but there are holes in your logic.
For example, even suppose that developers created UTL packages (and there is a cost issue there) and even suppose that Flight1 were to accept our offer of modules, to be of any use whatsoever each user would have to buy UTL which is $45.

That is what I meant. Unless the vast majority of our users buy it what is the point of creating packages for it. Hence the comment about expecting all of our base to spend $45.

Plus from what I read it works off of published schedules, which the military do not have, so we would have an issue of flightplans as they would not be able to use published scheules and real time updates. So we would actually cause issues for their product.
Again I could be wrong here but that is what they seem to say their product does.

There is a downside to this product, which anybody that has been part of a server based online flying org will know is that everybody will have the same system, the same schemes, everything. There will be no individuality unless you are talking about switching off various bits of the traffic.
For example what about users that like/want retro traffic?

The other important issue is that we would have to give the authority for Flight1 to supply the models. We do not have that right. Modellers have given us the right to release their work in our packages but we do not have the right to allow a commercial organisation to use their work.

The developers cost issue that I mentioned is that anybody that produces anything for this system would need to have to purchase the system in order to test their work out. Also would Flight1 actually allow third parties to have a developers kit?

The original question you made was a reasonable one to ask but as soon as you start to dig you realise that it becomes more and more unlikely. We have trouble at the moment enthusing our members to create releases. Imagine now that you would have to create a package for UTL, supposing all the other issues could be overcome, and then have to create a package for people who do not have/want UTL.
Then we have the thorny issue about creating packages for those users still on FS9. I realise that the number may be dwindling but it is still significant and therefore currently can't be dismissed as it is still our base package.

Now what I envisage happening is that once ALL possible models have been converted/made in FSX format versions there is likely to be a staff discussion about when we should switch to another platform as base, and which base.
This would be to allow people currently on FS9 to either accept that everything they do from a certain date will be on their terms and not fully supported by MAIW or if they are going to convert then give them time to do this.

In summary.
Unknown if system is compatible with the way our Mil traffic works.
Cost involved for users and developers.
Duplication of effort would be required.
Inflexible system.
Permission issues.
Programming changes required to Matrix.
Locks out FS9 users.

In reality for the moment you will have to decide if you want to have a performance boost for Civil traffic or both Civil and Military traffic for the same performance as the initial recce would seem to indicate that this is not going to happen in the immediate future if ever.
Steve
_______________________________________________________
Image
Quid Si Coelum Ruat
_______________________________________________________

User avatar
Woogey
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
Posts: 161
Joined: 04 Jul 2012, 18:23
Version: P3D

Re: MAIW Client Based Server

Post by Woogey »

hey Steve, thank you for taking the time to address many of the different variables that would be a play in a feature such as I have requested. Of course I have not thought about many of the aspects that you bring up. With that said I may have to figure out a way to disable any default civilian traffic that the simulator may try to create. In this way then prepared will only be enabling our wonderful Military Ai.

-Woog

User avatar
Firebird
MAIW Admin
MAIW Admin
Posts: 10157
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:04
Version: FS9
Location: EGLL

Re: MAIW Client Based Server

Post by Firebird »

My first question to you would be whether you would get any performance benefit from only using Civil using UTL or whether the fact that you still have the traffic sliders in play for the Military traffic negates any benefit.

As you have the system I would be interested to know what models they use for the server, is it the models from the TrafficX system?
What happens if you switch out their expected model/scheme for one that you want to use?

I suspect I know the answers but only somebody like yourself can actually investigate.

From experience I know that you reduce the number of models/schemes on the server to a minimum to conserve data transfer rates.
Try adding a set of models created by Kev and their individual schemes that we have come to expect and my guess is that the performance would go down drastically, which would undermine their product.
You could have about 6 models and 6 schemes to service the entire American Airlines fleet but Kev has released 24x mdls for his F-15E alone and there are 95x schemes at Seymour Johnson. I am willing to bet that UTL will not be so efficient around that base.
Steve
_______________________________________________________
Image
Quid Si Coelum Ruat
_______________________________________________________

User avatar
Greg
MAIW Admin
MAIW Admin
Posts: 3752
Joined: 12 Aug 2006, 19:56
Version: P3D
Location: Belgium

Re: MAIW Client Based Server

Post by Greg »

Woogey wrote:
25 Jul 2018, 18:39
I may have to figure out a way to disable any default civilian traffic that the simulator may try to create. In this way then prepared will only be enabling our wonderful Military Ai.
Can't you just do what we all do and rename the default trafficAircraft.bgl in Scenery\World\scenery? You could then leave the slider at 100%, use UTL for the civvies and Matrix for military traffic.

User avatar
Woogey
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
Posts: 161
Joined: 04 Jul 2012, 18:23
Version: P3D

Re: MAIW Client Based Server

Post by Woogey »

Well that's exactly what I ended up doing. I was unaware that "We all did that". I thought for sure it was going to be a bunch of files that needed to be deactivated, not just the one. Much easier than expected!

-Woog

User avatar
Greg
MAIW Admin
MAIW Admin
Posts: 3752
Joined: 12 Aug 2006, 19:56
Version: P3D
Location: Belgium

Re: MAIW Client Based Server

Post by Greg »

You mean you've been looking at those ugly fake airliners all this time? :P

Post Reply