Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/09/23 in all areas

  1. VATSIM was founded in July 2001 by a group of individuals who came together with the idea of creating an online community which truly met the needs of flight simulator enthusiasts across the world. As well as providing a common network for flight simulation enthusiasts to connect to, VATSIM aimed to create a global community for learning, sharing experiences and pursuing new opportunities in the virtual aviation world. That original group of individuals are referred to as the VATSIM Founders. They have held the ownership of VATSIM since its inception and helped steer the direction of the network together with the VATSIM Board of Governors, as well as help pay for many of the expenses that come with running a network like VATSIM for the past 20 plus years. That said, VATSIM’s real strength and core is the result of the countless volunteers that have contributed untold hours over the last two-plus decades that have created the leading online flight simulation network. Now, over 20 years later, the VATSIM Founders are giving ownership of the network to the newly- formed VATSIM Inc. (a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation legally based in the United States) as part of succession plan to ensure VATSIM prospers into the future. VATSIM Inc., led by a newly formed Board of Directors, serving two-year terms, will oversee the financial and legal aspects of VATSIM. The Board of Governors will continue the day-to-day operational oversight of the network. By taking this step, VATSIM can grow and strengthen itself while ensuring a financially stable and healthy future. VATSIM will become more independent, with an even larger focus on education. The network will no longer be solely reliant on the selfless personal contributions of the VATSIM Founders, the VATSIM Board of Governors, and so many other valued contributors that have kept the network running for the last 20 years. Effective immediately, VATSIM will accept charitable donations. Everyone that wishes to support the VATSIM network financially will now be able to, through donations made at https://donate.vatsim.net All donations will go towards VATSIM infrastructure, maintenance, improvement, and growth of the VATSIM Network. Additionally, donations to VATSIM can be tax deductible for U.S. citizens and companies. Donations will be handled separately from your VATSIM account; forms of payment include all major credit cards, Apple Pay, Google Pay, PayPal, Venmo or direct bank transfer. Donating is completely optional and does not entitle account holders to receive any additional benefits or services while using the VATSIM network. VATSIM will remain a free-to-use network like it has been for the past 20+ years. We are very excited to take this next big step in the future of VATSIM and, together with all of you, we will build bigger and better! VATSIM Board of Directors & VATSIM Board of Governors VATSIM_NPO_Announcement.pdf
    14 points
  2. Discord chat is no substritute for forum discussion, but I get it that the fleeting transience of Discord contributions is more suited to the preferences of the majority of the membeship these days. It's unfortunate that the perhaps more thoughtful minority will suffer, and if that sounds like an elitist remark, it is nevertheless a possibility. I also get it that VATSIM may have financial issues to the extent that something as valuable as a good, rich discussion environment is deemed to be not financially worth it in terms of usage. That is a pity, particularly when VATSIM intends to focus even more on Education, where forum history is an Alladin's cave of useful material, unlike a Discord channel which is mostly an unstructured stream of consciousness. Sure, there are good questions there, and good aswers, but try finding them. I think the loss of a great forum is bad for VATSIM, but closing down as a result of lack of finances is even worse.
    6 points
  3. Hi everyone, A few facts and/or thoughts for folks to consider. At the time of this writing, our most recent CID issued is 1700488. With the exception of a couple dozen Founders CIDs and CIDs used as part of our infrastructure, member CID issuance started at 810001, meaning we've had 890,487 people initiate a registration. There are many of those that never confirm their registration, some that come and go, etc. Another measure is "active registrations". We currently show just shy of 140,000 "active" users, meaning they have registered and/or connected to the network at least once in the last 18 months. If you shorten that to 3 months, there are roughly 30,000 active members. We are currently operating at a cost of roughly $12K US/year. That is a significantly degraded service, as we've been cutting and slicing and chopping services to save money over the last year or so. We are very new to this fundraising stuff -- not even a month in -- so are learning more each day. That said, in order to restore some of the capability we had to cut, and thinking of slight growth/improvement, our initial projections are needing somewhere in the range of $18K/year. You are almost correct that roughly 1% currently contribute, though, sadly, it's even less than that. Currently only 0.75% (yes, that's only three quarters of a percent) have donated. And very few of those, less than 20%, signed up for recurring donations. For a more exact number, only 0.14% (or about an eighth of a percent) of our active users have set up a recurring donation to keep VATSIM running in perpetuity. I personally find this to be an astonishingly low number for the amazing benefit the members of our community receive, but that's what the current data shows. If every one of our active members donated an equal share to meet our initial budget, the contribution would be sixty cents (US) per year. However, at the current less-than-1% response rate, our current contributors, if those are the only folks/numbers we could count on donating, they would need to contribute an average of $100 per year. We are nowhere near this. Nor, frankly, should we be asking that much from any one person. The alternative, of course, is to greatly increase the number of people who donate to the community. Currently, donations made to date account for roughly 30% of our 2023 need, most of which were made within the first five days of our call for donations, and dropped to near-zero since. If you consider sustainability, and look at the recurring donations, we are closer to 20% of our need in order to sustain (and maybe even slightly grow/improve) VATSIM. So, yes, we need to increase our donation rate, both in terms of size, commitment to recurring donations, and most importantly number/percentage of people in the community donating. Some members in our community truly can't afford to donate anything at all. They are barely able to run a sim or a radar screen on their computer, but have a love -- many have a true passion -- for aviation. This community is absolute life and a stepping stone toward achieving a passionate dream for those people. Some members in our community could likely afford to donate dozens, if not hundreds, of dollars per year toward their own enjoyment as well as advancing a community filled with aviation passion and stepping stones to others' potential careers and/or passions. We don't charge a fee; we ask for the grace and kindness and compassion, in time, talents and treasures, from those that can afford to contribute to our community and our community members' dreams. So back to the question at hand, yes, the cost vs. value of the forums is very much in question. I am personally a huge proponent of keeping the forums, at least in some way, shape or form, for all of the reasons already stated. The decision is not yet a done deal, though if our situation doesn't improve quickly, it may be, and not in a way I'm in favor of. In terms of fundraising reminders, we're 3 weeks into our new community funding opportunity/journey. We are trying to find the right balance between too frequent outreach (which some have already accused us of), and not asking enough (which others have suggested) which could cause the organization to fail financially. And with so many folks in the community, that balance is a little different individually. But we're trying to find the right overall balance for the community. We've never done this before within this community/environment. Which isn't to say that we're completely ignorant -- we're not -- but we're trying to find the best balance with respect to community outreach for fundraising, publishing financials to give folks transparency, etc. It will never be perfect for most folks individually, but we're working to make it at least reasonable -- if not as close to perfect as possible -- for the overall community. And we appreciate everyone's patience as we tweak variables to help get us there. I hope this helps add some data and some perspective.
    5 points
  4. Six months ago, myself and 3 friends were in a call in the Indonesia vACC Discord, discussing VAs. A question arose... there are quite a few Indonesian VAs, but they're all either IVAO or InfiniteFlight based. Indonesia has seen significant development on VATSIM over the past 5 years, why are there no VATSIM-focused Indonesian VAs? So we decided to make our own answer to that question... Meet Garuda Virtual. We replicate the operations of Garuda Indonesia and its low-cost subsidiary Citilink Indonesia. Garuda operates long-haul and regional routes using Boeing 737, Airbus A330 and Boeing 777; whereas Citilink operates the A320 NEO and CEO. We have been operational since late 2022, and officially launched in early January 2023. Since then, we have amassed about 50 active pilots, of whom 8 represent the management. Our management are experienced and passionate members of the community, including aviation industry professionals, planespotters and simulation enthusiasts, who have some 15 thousand VATSIM hours between them. We have partnered with VATSIM Indonesia vACC (IDvACC) for general cooperation, Gabut Simulations for keeping the fleet repaints up-to-date across the simulators, and Aldo Mampir — an Indonesian content creator with over 4.000 subscribers at the time of writing — for mutual promotion. We intend to seek partnership with VATSIM shortly. What are you waiting for? If flying in Indonesia is your thing, or you feel like trying something new, sign up and give Garuda Virtual a try!
    5 points
  5. Hello - I have been looking at this for several months now and what I have found is the level of web content varies greatly between facilities. Some are existing on very cheap DreamHost type accounts for a few dollars per month; while others have built and maintain extremely complex and resource intensive systems. This is the nature of VATSIM and feel it is this individuality that pushes VATSIM forward. Yes, you are correct, the "Other Place" does provide hosting for their facilities and uses a boilerplate type system to achieve this and they have some incredibly miserable sites as a result. Just compare our ZLA with their ZLA as an example. In short - Some of the systems built by facilities we just can't afford. Others we could probably help with and we have in the past. Economy of scale, in my opinion, is great for the bottom line but does take a lot of the flexibility away from the local staff. I guess it depends how much independence facilities would be willing to give up to have the resource funded. Which at this point is kind of a pointless discussion because we are just trying to keep the VATSIM core services up and running. We have things that need to be looked at immediately and in the very near term: 1. Kubernetes cluster needs additional nodes and/or upgrades to existing nodes. 2. AFV ranging queue serves have extended wait times during high utilization of the FSD network. Code review and/or additional compute resources needed. 3. Increased demand for FSD network. Recently deployed additional server to increase cap limit to 2,400 connections. Review use of multiple ATIS policy and determine impact on FSD network. 4. Potential migration of voice ATIS service from existing location to core VATSIM location. Required resources and associated costs. 5. Growth of online stats database. Now contains in excess of 20+ years of information and causing performance issues. Feasibility of archiving/pruning/architecture of data to decrease resource demand and improve performance. 6. Resource planning for additional compute for upcoming ATC clients. 7. Forums - What to do? Continue with existing and pay for a new license (non-profit pricing query) and the semi-annual update fees or move to a new free version with data migration issues to be resolved? 8. Review of existing development requests and their associated costs and ROI. 9. Review of email services. We are currently sending in excess of 31,000 emails per month from core services. Not a cost issue but more so a demand issue.
    4 points
  6. Hi everyone, A few facts and/or thoughts for folks to consider, three weeks into our new ability to fundraise. At the time of this writing, our most recent CID issued is 1700488. With the exception of a couple dozen Founders CIDs and CIDs used as part of our infrastructure, member CID issuance started at 810001, meaning we've had 890,487 people initiate a registration. There are many of those that never confirm their registration, some that come and go, etc. Another measure is "active registrations". We currently show just shy of 140,000 "active" users, meaning they have registered and/or connected to the network at least once in the last 18 months. If you shorten that to 3 months, there are roughly 30,000 active members. We are currently operating at a cost of roughly $12K US/year. That is a significantly degraded service, as we've been cutting and slicing and chopping services to save money over the last year or so. We are very new to this fundraising stuff -- not even a month in -- so are learning more each day. That said, in order to restore some of the capability we had to cut, and thinking of slight growth/improvement, our initial projections are needing somewhere in the range of $18K/year. You are almost correct that roughly 1% currently contribute, though, sadly, it's even less than that. Currently only 0.75% (yes, that's only three quarters of a percent) have donated. And very few of those, less than 20%, signed up for recurring donations. For a more exact number, only 0.14% (or about an eighth of a percent) of our active users have set up a recurring donation to keep VATSIM running in perpetuity. I personally find this to be an astonishingly low number for the amazing benefit the members of our community receive, but that's what the current data shows. If every one of our active members donated an equal share to meet our initial budget, the contribution would be sixty cents (US) per year. However, at the current less-than-1% response rate, our current contributors, if those are the only folks/numbers we could count on donating, they would need to contribute an average of $100 per year. We are nowhere near this. Nor, frankly, should we be asking that much from any one person. The alternative, of course, is to greatly increase the number of people who donate to the community. Currently, donations made to date account for roughly 30% of our 2023 need, most of which were made within the first five days of our call for donations, and dropped to near-zero since. If you consider sustainability, and look at the recurring donations, we are closer to 20% of our need in order to sustain (and maybe even slightly grow/improve) VATSIM. So, yes, we need to increase our donation rate, both in terms of size, commitment to recurring donations, and most importantly number/percentage of people in the community donating. Some members in our community truly can't afford to donate anything at all. They are barely able to run a sim or a radar screen on their computer, but have a love -- many have a true passion -- for aviation. This community is absolute life and a stepping stone toward achieving a passionate dream for those people. Some members in our community could likely afford to donate dozens, if not hundreds, of dollars per year toward their own enjoyment as well as advancing a community filled with aviation passion and stepping stones to others' potential careers and/or passions. We don't charge a fee; we ask for the grace and kindness and compassion, in time, talents and treasures, from those that can afford to contribute to our community and our community members' dreams. Some have asked about our frequency of fundraising reminders/outreach. In terms of fundraising reminders, we're 3 weeks into our new community funding opportunity/journey. We are trying to find the right balance between too frequent outreach (which some have already accused us of), and not asking enough (which others have suggested) which could cause the organization to fail financially. And with so many folks in the community, that balance is a little different individually. But we're trying to find the right overall balance for the community. We've never done this before within this community/environment. Which isn't to say that we're completely ignorant -- we're not -- but we're trying to find the best balance with respect to community outreach for fundraising, publishing financials to give folks transparency, etc. It will never be perfect for most folks individually, but we're working to make it at least reasonable -- if not as close to perfect as possible -- for the overall community. And we appreciate everyone's patience as we tweak variables to help get us there. I hope this helps add some data and some perspective. Thanks for all you can, and do, do to keep the community strong and growing!
    4 points
  7. +1. I don't know how many members we have, but the count started, I think, with 80000, and the most recent member has a serial no. of around 1,640,000, so we can assume a max of around 1.5 MIllion members. Divide that by two due to wastage and we have a current active membership of maybe 800K members. In order to accrue $12000 per annum, each member on average should therefore contribute 1.5 cents per year. But not everyone will contribute. Let's say that one in a hundred will. All that 1% needs to do is contribute $1.50 per year. Is that so difficult to achieve, that the bosses feel the need to kill a significant resource (apparently consiidered to be an albatross) in order to survive? And where are the calls for financial support? Apart from a sideline in a FAQ, where is the push for contributions? I definitely don't support the Wikipedia approach which can be overbearing (although I value that service and contribute $10 per month to their efforts) but some heightened awareness among members that this environment of ours is not cheap, must be given more prominence. It came as a shock to me to see that VATSIM is considered by the BoG to be hanging by such a slender thread.
    4 points
  8. Will it be made public by the IRS and "the public" will have to go searching for it with a magnifier glass, or is VATSIM going to actively and openly publish its financial status at regular intervals? Please don't misunderstand me, I am not trying to insinuate that something illegal may be going on. The point is: publishing the data (required funding vs. actual balance) will motivate more members to give a little, because we all want our network to prosper. That's how it is done at VATSIM Germany (at least when I was on the hot seat there) and it worked very well.
    4 points
  9. I hope they reverse the decision. This forum is by far superior to the end user compared to the hard to navigate, simplistic option. If it is purely a financial reason, perhaps a donate button or call for assistance like Wikipedia does. It will be detrimental to loose this forum; content and currently offered options layout. On a related note, will there now be a financial report tabled at the Executive meetings, considering our change of status.
    4 points
  10. Hi Don, thanks for sharing all these details! In short: I think that these figures and the need for further donations should be published in the places that are visited by more members: VATSIM's Facebook page, VATSIM's Discord and it should be propagated down to all Regions and Divisions for distribution in their local communication channels.
    3 points
  11. Just a heads up. For 2022 VATSIM will file Form 990-N because our total donations received was $0. VATSIM's bills in 2022 were paid by a small group of individuals privately. For 2023, VATSIM is allowed to file Form 990-N but it will file Form 990EZ for much more detail and the increased transparency. RJ
    3 points
  12. I think that is a judgement call. When you are on a very busy frequency and you get such a clearance, do not report that you have commenced your descent, don't clutter the control frequency with irrelevant information. When it is quiet and you personally feel better by reporting your descent, then do it, but unless ATC asked you to do so, don't. It's like intercepting a final approach track: unless ATC asks you to report it, don't. They have radar, they can see you. If they don't, they will ask you to report it. In some countries you may have to report it, but ATC usually let's you know, e.g. in Switzerland. In the real world I do not report descent in such circumstances, because ATC has a) instructed us to do something and b) we read the instruction back: ATC knows that we are going to descend at some point and he would only instructed us to do it, because the airspace is clear for this maneuver. Case closed. The phraseology usually is: when ready descend flight level/altitude xxxxx (QNH/altimeter) when ready descend flight level/altitude xxxxx (QNH/altimeter), cross ABCDE at level OR reach level yy miles before ABCDE pilot's discretion descend flight level/altitude xxxxx (QNH/altimeter) pilot's discretion descend flight level/altitude xxxxx (QNH/altimeter), cross ABCDE at level OR reach level yy miles before ABCDE
    3 points
  13. BAVirtual also uses Invision Power Board. Now the software is purchased, it is FREE. The only need for money to change hands is to continue the UPGRADE licence. As such the cost perspective is mute. If a reason is given of ‘security’ and ‘patches’ - what guarantee is there that the free software is as secure, and will continue to be patched? If cost is being given as a driver, I think we need a bit more of an explanation to address the above. This seems like a classic case of VATSIM staff faffing about with websites rather than doing something useful. Can we have an explanation from the BoG to provide reassurance that there is a factor we are not aware of, before a valuable resource and repository of DECADES of information is irretrievably trashed?? @Tim Barber
    3 points
  14. Has any consideration been given to the overall rationalisation of services and costs? There are so so many local websites and forums running, that have to now (and will continue to be?) paid and financed separately. Is there any economy of scale where everybody wins? I think that would also yield improvement in some areas such as time duplicating building and running websites, when only one is needed, and so on. I think it would also lead to better sharing of capabilities (be it web systems or people) that some places have but others do not. I think 'the other network' has everything in one place and it works for them. Seeing VATSIM not only survive but prosper is in everybody's interest!
    2 points
  15. I appreciate and agree. I'll speak to my colleagues in Marketing and Communications. Thanks for the suggestions!
    2 points
  16. To add to Andreas' points above, experienced controllers will have a fair idea of where your TOD point is so will be expecting to see you start descending around there. If you don't and it looks a little late, they may come back and ask you to report descending or ask you to confirm you are aware you can... On a slight tangent, recently I've had a number of pilots simply descend as soon as I give this instruction, resulting in them being level anything up to 50 miles before they need to be! So for those unsure on what this means, in simple terms - if you're given a "when ready" descent, stay at your current level until the TOD point in your FMC/plan THEN descend to the level given by the controller (and no further!)
    2 points
  17. I do not think that VATSIM has a financial problem. Now, that VATSIM can officially accept donations, this should be even less of a problem. EDIT: but I would not hurt if we had more members donating, and if it is just 5 or 10 USD, the equivalent of a cup of coffee. I did not have time yet, but I am going to donate a good chunk of money soon.
    2 points
  18. From the developers of swift pilot client: As many users have noticed, swift 0.12.2 will stop working at the end of this month. There is now a new beta version, swift 0.12.48 (this was the previous alpha version). Thanks for your patience ❤️ There is also a new alpha version 0.12.72 with the following changes: ▫️Fixed crash with "CG must not be negative" message. ▫️Fixed ATC seeing the wrong altitude of pilots using X-Plane 12 and MSFS 2020. Users of X-Plane 12 and of MSFS2020 should use the ALPHA version now as it fixes the wrong altitude being reported to ATC and other aircraft. The deviation can be quite significant. https://docs.swift-project.org/doku.php?id=download_swift_installer https://github.com/swift-project/pilotclient/releases
    2 points
  19. You can start by making a call to the controller requesting a radio check. If he doesn't respond, then try to make a text message to the controller. When he then responds to this, the two of you can agree to do the radiocheck to see if you are transmitting as you should. Be aware of range limitations - flying low or parked at the ground reduces your range, which might be why, atc didn't hear you the first time.
    2 points
  20. It happens for me If I close vatspy after I resized it to bigger width (actually it will not restart if last width in config exceeds 1157 pixel). Try to resize it to smaller size before closing it and look if it restarts. Or delete the config out of %appdata%/vat-spy. If you start the default size is small enough to show up. Also restarts should work with this size, so you know how small it should be approx before closing.
    2 points
  21. Hi Sean, I'm not sure I understand this first question. I would say although there is not any specific expectation, if we want VATSIM to continue, it is certainly necessary. As I mentioned above, we know that not every member of the community can afford to donate, but the hope certainly is that those that can, will. There will always be a need at the global and at the local level. For many folks, it won't be an all or nothing thing in terms of where their time, talents and treasures are distributed. Thought has certainly gone into the holistic structure. However, as was mentioned above, right now there isn't enough funding to keep the global VATSIM network alive through the end of the year. If VATSIM dies, there will be no local regions or divisions to worry about. The Marketing and Comms folks are probably going to be upset about how blunt I'm being, but this is truly transparency.... 😉
    1 point
  22. Another thought. Many companies have a charitable contribution matching program. My company matches my recurring donation 100%, doubling the impact of my contribution. It also gives me the ability to make my contribution via payroll deduction or credit card, recurring or one-time. Of course, I chose a recurring donation. If you hadn't considered it, it may be worth a thought to see if your employer has a charitable contribution matching program. Of course, to all those that have, and all those that will shortly, begun donating to our phenomenal community, THANK YOU!
    1 point
  23. It's a great point, and one that we'll look into. One challenge that we've had in the past is local facilities' interest in total control. But I think it's been a while since it's been seriously looked into. Thanks for the suggestion!
    1 point
  24. I think it was Sonic Studio, I also checked the fire wall permissions. All is good now, thanks
    1 point
  25. There is no denying that last statement, speaking on behalf of myself. While the AIM also requires vacating altitudes, which is accomplished when you readback a descend and maintain clearance. For pilot's discretion descents, though, since you're not required to vacate the altitude the initial readback doesn't always meet the requirement. That said, even though the AIM requires it in the States, it's a rare day that I ever hear a pilot report vacating an altitude on a pilot's discretion descent. Even when I do it, which isn't all the time due, as you put it earlier, to determining that such a report would be more hindrance than help on a busy frequency, at least half of the controllers sound surprised at the report. Back when I worked at ZDV, I always appreciated the report because it did two things: made me look at the datablock to see if I needed to do anything else with it (handoff, pointout, etc.) and gave me one more chance to make absolutely certain there was no traffic for that aircraft, just in case I missed anything when I initially gave the PD descent.
    1 point
  26. I see that vatsim.uk uses Invision forum software too. So far, they apparently haven't found it necessary to downgrade, despite the fact that their forum is a good deal quieter than this one.
    1 point
  27. In your EuroScope folder there is a folder "PlugInEnvironment". Look for the "RegisterTagItem...()" functions. The HoldingListPlugin is an example for usage. It has been over 10 years that I fiddled with plugin development but it is still there 🙂.
    1 point
  28. Hey All - Had an open mic incident earlier today at Gatwick and wanted to share the cause and resolution as a contribution to the community. Background - Got back into flight sim when FS20 dropped, migrated to X Plane exclusively. Apx 300 hours since August 2020, 5 flights on VATSIM. For my rig I use a flight stick, M&K for some cockpit actions, and Streamdeck configured as a flight panel - see attachment - works great and highly recommended. Got a text from Gatwick Clearance Delivery I had an open mic. I use PTT via L CTRL, so I confirmed nothing was pressing the key and texted same to Gatwick assuming either mic had been open but resolved itself after they sent text, or text was sent to me in error. A minute later I received another text indicating open mic and I immediately DCd as that seemed the fastest way to resolve the issue for other people on the service. What I found was, when I had configured Streamdeck I used key combos plus letter for various functions. Some of those functions were hotkey switch rather than hotkey, and the culprit was L CTRL + h for heading select, both press and release. Once I had touched that key on the button box it was essentially staying pressed, even when I 'released' it via a second press. This was my setup for some time and I'd forgotten all the key combos I'd used. Prior to using xPilot it hadn't been an issue because, well, no possibility of an open mic. Lesson learned. Double check that none of your xPilot settings conflict with current in game or third party key commands, as some of them are sort of hidden. Cheers - - W
    1 point
  29. Opppsss I forget to thank @Trevor Hannant Trevor, thanks for your kind answer and my apologies to you for forgetting to thank you Regards, Aharon
    1 point
  30. As Trevor has said, there are no approaches at Mount Hagen specific to a runway. There is the RNAV arrival, which connects to the RNAV(GNSS) approach which can be used for all runways. The missed approach point will have you close to the threshold of 26, you might be able to get down, although the MDA is bertween 1,700' and 2,500' above the aerodrome. In all likelihood for 26, and for all other runways you'll then need to conduct a circling approach, which is only allowed to the north of the aerodrome (the hills are too close on the southern side. PNG is like Nepal, take extreme care flying through clouds. The clouds often have rocks in them.
    1 point
  31. https://www.niuskypacific.com.pg/aip-flight-supplements/ Page 173 of the linked document has the charts for AYMH. Looking in Navigraph there are no approach charts, only: - GUGPU1 RNAV Arr and - RNAV (GNSS) A ...which matches with that document.
    1 point
  32. You can do that in the default Cessna 172 as a way of getting started. The GNS530/steam gauge version will do this. There are some good tutorials on Youtube about how to use the GPS. You can create flight plans in Simbrief and download the .fms file to load into the GPS. You can then add SIDs/STARs as required and various approaches (ILS/RNAV/etc). You just have to remember to activate the approach at the initial approach fix. For the glass cockpit G1000 experience, you could try the free Aerobask Robin DR401. The G1000 will also do VPATH descent. Another option, still a work in progress but very easy to fly, is the free Beechcraft Bonanza A36. The beauty of all these aircraft is you can still use radio navigation and fly VFR if you want. They are all easy and fun to hand fly. Once you've got the hang of those and you're ready to graduate to better simulation, I can highly recommend the (payware) Airfoillabs King Air 350. If you want to try bigger aircraft, the free Zibo 737-800 is very immersive with very advanced navigation capabilities. There are lots of tutorials about how to use the FMC and automation.
    1 point
  33. I'm looking for a recommendation for an X-Plane 12 aircraft that can be used to fly RNAV routes on VATSIM that is as SIMPLE as possible for a new pilot. In other words, I'm NOT looking for a super accurate representation of an airplane and requirements for start-up + complex systems + failure modeling. This is just to learn how to read RNAV charts and fly them without upsetting ATC and other pilots on VATSIM too much. Once I've gotten that basic navigation understanding down, perhaps I can then graduate to better simulation. I like smaller aircraft, so no need to go for heavies (although I get the impression that it's mostly the bigger aircraft that support more advanced RNAV capabilities?) (For context, when I started flight sim in the late 80's, GPS wasn't available and I happily tracked VOR radials using DME. That's my starting level of IFR knowledge... After a few decades away of not slight simming, I'm back to trying to learn what's new.) Thanks for any suggestions!
    1 point
  34. Prosim 737 user full fixed base simulator MSFS2020 with live weather. ATC tells me I am 400 ft too high. Problem appears when above transition alt. STD is not "working". Need to set the current QNH on ground.
    1 point
  35. You should disable AI traffic when flying online. ATC and other online pilots can't see your AI traffic, so all you get is confusing yourself and others, when trying to distinguish between traffic, which you need to avoid due to Rules of the air or atc commands.
    1 point
  36. That did the trick. I shrunk the window down to its smallest size before closing and now it launches just fine. Thank you!
    1 point
  37. I would recommend that you watch to learn more about ZHU's Oceanic Airspace, including information on when position reports are required 🙂
    1 point
  38. Hi @Gergely Csernak, Would it be possible to recompile EuroScope in 64bit? It should not take much but a bit of configuration in Visual Studio, and would really help when trying to run EuroScope through a compatibility layer such as Wine. It would also make EuroScope slightly more future proof, as 32bit is slowly being deprecated everywhere, and is already no longer supported by Apple. I understand this would require recompiling plugins, but if both options are provided I would be more than willing to recompile all of mine and provide binaries for both architectures. Thanks! Pierre
    1 point
  39. Flightgear is a great product but it has it's drawbacks like lack of 3rd party add-ons ,no payware airports, it's sceneries and navdata are pretty outdated , it's okay to fly maybe VFR to and from small airports but would be a nightmare if you wanna fly jetliners,wish they can update it and welcome payware developers someday. Cheapest way to fly on vatsim,I think, is Xplane.One purchase (maybe from steam and during discounts for lower rice) and you get updated global airports, abundant high quality freeware aircrafts like the amazing zibo/Levelup 737,Kingair EVO ,etc. You can fly on vatsim enjoying payware level freeware aircrafts and updated airports without paying for anything other than Xplane itself and of course navigraph subscription,one trick is to subscribe through discontinued monthly subscription.Skip one month if there's no obvious changes and you save 8Euros, subscribe again when there's a major change 🤪
    1 point
  40. 16 years and 700,000 users!
    1 point
  41. It's perfectly fine to add that to your remarks, but it's a little redundant. So long as you are squawking VFR (1200) while you're departing, there really should be no confusion. If there is, that's on the controller and not on you. I don't honestly remember if I've had anyone air-file with me on the network, but it's one of those things I've always wanted to do. It is also a workload-permitting service, so if you try to air-file and I'm too busy to handle it, I might say you'll have to submit your FP online. Pop-up IFR clearances are admittedly much easier for the controller if you've already got a flight plan on file. The bottom line here is that as you get used to the network and the pacing of ATC and pilots, you'll get a good feel for what level of realism you can likely get away with. Maybe you'll start with pop-up IFR with the FP already filed; maybe after a bit ask the controller if you can air-file with them.
    1 point
  42. For beginnners route planning is sometimes a question on clicking at some button in Simbrief. That's taking route planing too lightly in my mind. So I've attached a document describing some of the thing I do, when I choose a route. PS: This is not my entire flight planning, merely the route I'm checking here. Route Planning.pdf
    1 point
  43. Hello, my MSFS starts lagging after connecting to VATSIM via vPilot. This does not have anything to do with my previous post, I have solved the problem from there, which ended up not being caused by vPilot. Ive did a flight after fixing it, on the 28th Sep, and it went perfectly. The issue from that post also did not affect my FPS, just the aircraft model - Here it does affect my FPS, and by quite a bit. Here is all the Info Ive gathered about the problem at hand: The lag starts right after a vPilot connection is initiated and stops right after disconnection The problem did not occur on the 28th September, but it did on the 2nd of October, inbetween those 2 dates I have not changed anything in MSFS - Ive installed no addons, Ive changed no settings [I am pretty sure WU11 was issued in the time though, if it was we have a starting point for fixing the issue] When disabling aircraft in the setting (that is setting Maximum aircraft displayed to 0), the simulator starts stuttering a bit which did not happen [on flights] before [this one] - so I dont think the problem fully lies on aircraft rendering When aircraft are enabled in the setting (that is setting Maximum aircraft displayed to >0), the simulator starts lagging and stuttering quite a lot which also did not happen [on flights] before [this one] On both of those occasions the only major change when looking at the MSFS Dev FPS Display, outside of the FPS itself, seems to be a lot more red lines on the FPS Line Graph which Im assuming means more dropped frames The lag seems not to occur when the outside world is NOT in view - so the FPS stays normal (compared to vPilot disconnected) when the camera is fully facing a part of the aircraft cockpit (ex. Overhead Panel) The lag does not seem to be dependent on the aircraft (tested with B737, B747 and A320), even though the 737 seems to be the most affected - but that could be a cause of its FPS being lower in general in comparison to other aircraft The lag is not dependent on the airport, it is observed whether I spawn at a small, big, addon, premium or default airport I have tried emptying my Community folder to no luck I have not had any programs (outside of the ones in the background, that I also had open on every other flight session) open during the testing Nothing stands out when looking at the Task Manager - when vPilot is connected there is only a small change in the CPU Usage, there doesnt seem to be a memory leak... The CPU and GPU Usage of MSFS2020 also seem to be unaffected by it (kind of hard to tell for GPU though because it already hovers in the high 90s area), and in general the stats given in Task Manager seem to be similar for both as they were on previous flights
    1 point
  44. I think perhaps VATSIM's sign-up process could / should do a better job of explaining that the words "event" and "new pilot" generally do not mix.
    1 point
  45. And it is very FAA-specific. In Europe you are either certified to fly IFR, or you are not. There are not restrictions, except that you need additional training for RNP, CAT II and CAT III approaches. Circling approaches are "basic knowledge" and part of IFR training, there's nothing special about them.
    1 point
  46. Gonna introduce a thought that @Simon Kelsey brought forward in the discord - what exactly "guides" RVPs to make the right decision and to decide on what is right or wrong, or to what extent a sub-division really should require a local phraseology proficiency or not? Because in my view, if you trust RVPs and give them such heavy discretion to make such decisions and exemptions from GCAP, then I don't understand - why can divisions and sub-divisions not just make their own rules and policies and just "do their own thing", which can then be reviewed and approved by the relevant RVP? If you trust them enough to make decisions like this one, why not trust them to appropriately judge what the divisions want? What I see right now: - A bunch of divisions with different procedures and regulations (that were explicitly made to suit those specific divisions/sub-divisions) arguing about what's right or wrong, because it will be in the global policy. Again. I put emphasis on this. Let them do their own thing and there won't be any trouble or people being unhappy.
    1 point
  47. Then I can assure you, you haven't controlled in south America. Flying into ANY Southern- South American Country (excluding north because Long hauls usually arrive there from other places in the world), and you will hear nothing but Spanish. Fly into ANY Southern- Brazilian sector, and you will hear nothing but Portuguese on frequency. I've had multiple Brazilian pilots enter SUEO speaking in Portuguese, switch to text or straight up disconnect on contact me's (Happens way more often that one would think). I'm not generalizing and I'm sure a lot of Brazilian people speak English, I'm just sharing facts, want to make that clear before the discussion turns away from what it actually is. (To add; VATBRZ Staff and it's community are some of the nicest people I've met and very pleasant to work with..) That said, imagine an X nationality person, who doesn't speak Spanish. Go into Argentinian sectors, Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela, Uruguay... 90% of the traffic there is Spanish speaking, and I will make clear that most of the pilots will disconnect. Going back to Brazil, which due to it's traffic I bet it catches a lot of people's attention, you fly in there without speaking Portuguese and you'll have 0 awareness of what's going on. Turn that around and you'll have just 2 planes in what used to be an overloaded sector. Believe me when I say that mentoring is going to be an issue if English would be used in some places, All of VATSUR's documents are in Spanish, so when I got someone to train in a pretty much empty sub-division (without Staff), and he did not speak Spanish, I had to improvise all of the training.. Training one person in English was clearly not what some mentors wanted, since they straight up said "Keep him, you can train him". It's not because of excluding the person, but because of the complications it created.. Honestly, I think this rule will do more harm than good in many regions of the world and I think it should be the left to each sub-division's criteria. They know best what will work and what will not.
    1 point
  48. This is a hobby for all of us and not all of us speak perfect English to actually be able to "enjoy" it. My point still stands, it's not worth losing loads of pilots for each non-proficient controller that they meet, over having a controller being able to visit a specific country, when they can just as perfectly visit another place in the world. So don't. No offense but there are loads of places around the globe that you can visit that don't require the knowledge of Spanish - or any other foreign language for that matter. I don't speak French, so I don't visit France, as an example.
    1 point
  49. "being as inclusive as possible" could in reality mean exclusion of local pilots. It should not be a requirement for pilots to speak English, if they fly locally in their own country. A thought: I, as a Dane, flies around Denmark, but can not recieve ATC in Danish, because "we" on VATSIM doesn't want to require local language proficiency. Is that fair? You want to exclude me from having atc, because you want controllers to be able to move around a give ATC whereever they want? But in fact you require me to learn English in order to recieve atc in my own country. I would call that being exclusive. In reality most (not all, I know) controllers controls in their native country, so language is usually not a problem. And we, as controllers (non-native-English -speaking), have accepted the fact, that we need to learn English in order to facilitate all pilots flying into my area of control. I think it is a rather small requirement that controllers learn basic atc-lingo in the area, where they control.
    1 point
  50. Nothing has changed on our side since AFV was released (other than 2-3 things which caused server crashes), so the fact that now the standalone doesn't work either with VRC is a mere coincidence; just like tha fact that it initially worked with it but not with vPilot, as both of them are using exactly the same code for voice. Instead of saying that the tech team is not competent (like you have done in another thread), I suggest you change your tone. This is a FREE network, with VOLUNTEERS spending their FREE time to develop stuff for YOU, and after more than a year of daily work on it, the least you could've said is "thanks". There is more than 3000 other persons using it daily without any issues, which proves the point that it's not an issue on our side (and if it is, it's not something under our control), so we would have absolutely no reason whatsoever to help YOU with YOUR problem, but still, the main development team is looking into possible fixes and/or workarounds for the < 5% of the people which seem to experience this issue. Whenever we get our motivation back stuff will be done, but comments like yours don't help on making it any faster. Have you tried using any other network? What happens if you connect through a mobile network for example? Does it work then?
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...