Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/16/20 in all areas

  1. 1 point
  2. 1 point
    Welcome back to Vatsim 😉 Both clients essentially do the same thing. FSInn is no longer supported by the developer as far as I know. vPilot is well supported by the developer via this forum. As a former FSInn user myself, there were functions within FSInn that I did like, but I moved over to vPilot some years ago and have no complaints. It's very straight forward and should work "straight out of the box". Andrew
  3. 1 point
    Robert is correct. You can have two version of xPilot on the same machine, but they must installed in two different folders (you can specify the folder during the installation process).
  4. 1 point
    Published on the #VATSIMEVENTS calendar and VATSIM Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/vatsimevents/ https://www.vatsim.net/events/panic-stations-melbourne
  5. 1 point
    Published on the #VATSIMEVENTS calendar and VATSIM Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/vatsimevents/ https://www.vatsim.net/events/ga-madness-melbourne
  6. 1 point
    From what I understand he wants to replicate this bit, mostly because in his post he did not specify what NOTAM he was attempting to replicate.... In the real world they would use markings on the ground to indicate a displaced threshold like so. So the question is, how do you replicate that in the SIM and get pilots to land on the remaining 2435m with no way for them to judge the distance in their SIM, and no way to indicate the displaced threshold. For departures you can ask a pilot to take off from the intersection prior to the displacement, but what is the point of trying to simulate it when you can't offer it to both arriving and departing planes?
  7. 1 point
    Hello, I come to inform you that I am creating and updating sector files, if you need it for your TMA or Parents, you can contact me! I teach too! If you want to learn!
  8. 1 point
    I have searched for some notice of the permanent shutdown of our server and cannot find any. If this is so then it shows quite some lack of respect for Australian members. If timely advice was given then I retract my remarks. However if no notice was given then I would appreciate an explanation from the Board please.
  9. 1 point
    Oh, you send a good message my friend! Unfortunately, it was/is way off the topic or point if you will that Dan and I raised. Gunnar has now mounted an apologia of sorts and while it's not a: "We're sorry guys, we blew it. Should have given you a shout out before we pressed the button." it will have to do. It's just that we would prefer to be treated like colleagues rather than subjects.
  10. 1 point
    Mr. President, That is reasonably close to an apology. Reasonably. "Had we known what an emotive subject this would be we would of course had done more to re-assure our friends Down Under and in NZ prior to the change taking place." It made a small change in how people connected to the network. The technical differences were, except to a few, invisible. The original question was " Why didn't you tell us this would/might happen before it happened?" It would have taken far less of your time to have dashed off a notice than it has now taken to deal with the backlash. (I wrote one for you yesterday in able 90 seconds.) Now, the "The change was completed under the logic that it would not adversely affect user experience." has not adversely effected ALL users but it has effected enough that questions have been raised. The logic was faulty. Another few minutes thought and all this might have been avoided. The reactions to these questions recalls memories of the situation in which VATSIM found itself a couple of years ago (could have been more could have been less, memory stick faulty) when some of your "friends" Down Under were not feeling so friendly.
  11. 1 point
    You've entirely missed the point Andreas. I do not speak officially for either VATPAC or VATNZ but to suggest that either have been in the least ungrateful for the situation in which they found themselves lowers the tone of the discussion and does nothing for the community at large. Please re-read Dan's post. I thought he was being unusually clear.😊
  12. 1 point
    Many seem to be missing the whole point of my post. It does not concern server speeds (or whatever) it is about a lack of respect for Australian members and only that. And Matthew C and Matthew B both seem to have trouble saying a simple "sorry about the lack of notice" from the BOG. That's all that would be required in answer to my post.😐
  13. 1 point
    The problem as I understand it is that particularly in more rural locations in Oz/NZ quite a lot of the time there's a heavy reliance on RF/satellite links etc for large portions of the network. These inherently carry with them not only limited bandwidth but a great deal of latency and instability. The FSD network runs on the TCP protocol. In very basic terms this is a 'guaranteed delivery' protocol which means that if you send a message the server at the other end needs to wait for and acknowledge that ALL the packets have been received and asks for them again if they don't arrive (kind of like a signed for delivery... you know you're expecting a package, if you're not in the postman takes it away and comes back another day)... you can see how on an unstable satellite connection with lots of packet loss the same message ends up getting sent many times... the latency goes up and up and up and eventually the connection drops. The advantage of having a more local server in this situation is that with 'less internet' between you and it, you are more likely to at least be able to speak to that server with some degree of reliability and in turn that server has a better chance of being able to relay that to the rest of the network (being more likely to be connected more directly to the internet backbone). Voice on the other hand works via UDP which is a much less fussy protocol... basically spray out packets and hope for the best so in that way at least it is in theory slightly less vulnerable (more like sticking a stamp on an envelope and hoping for the best - once you've put it in the postbox you forget about it and move on to the next one).
  14. 1 point
    Matt, Thank you for your response. I appreciate the magic you and your team create for the users of this facility. I just don't understand why some one last week could not have said: "Please be aware that there are going to be some major changes made to the VATSIM infrastructure. Some strange things may appear to be happening. Some changes will be permanent, others will not. A formal announcement will be made when we figure out what is happening, no scratch that!😘 When we can fully document these changes and be assured that they will work to he benefit of the community." That having been said we, here in the antipodes, would not have been left feeling that we were given the short end of the stick.
  15. 1 point
    (Just to begin, for the record, I connect as Samuel Rey, so I do use my full name after all) Look. I'm a minor, I think it's reasonable to not want to publish my full name every time I fly. Or even part of my name. Somebody could get my Facebook, or Instagram account, look at newspaper articles mentioning me.. I don't use facebook a whole lot, so in my case this wouldn't bother me, but why shouldn't somebody have the option of anonymity? Do you need to know the real life name of somebody to issue an IFR clearance? You say that it removes the community aspect of VATSIM, but the people who want anonymity wouldn't participate in the community anyway. And it's one thing to give VATSIM staff the access to my personal info, it's another thing to publish that info prominently while I'm flying. I don't see that as an issue. When you .wallop someone you usually refer to the callsign, not the real name (which might have duplicates). Well, some (most) users see VATSIM as exactly that. A place to get realistic ATC. And they should be able to get it without giving out their personal info. And yes, I do consider your name to be personal info. Also, I think the BoG have done exactly the opposite, especially since last year. For example, ever since the AFV launch, traffic numbers are much higher, as well as new controllers, etc. That's how you grow a community. Not by forcing everybody to give out their real name but instead making VATSIM accessible for more people. This is nonsense. Allowing people to connect relatively anonymously (like it is standard in most online games) doesn't have anything to do with that.
  16. 1 point
    Thank you. Yes, it is a very valid implementation. It is in C++ which I'm not very familiar with. I'm sorry to pick you, but you started it. Since the invention of the wheel, we have engineered all kinds of wheels. Cart wheels, artillery wheels, flywheels, wire wheels, train wheels, just to name a few. Perhaps most notably, gears. There are many kinds of wheels, none of which is a replacement for the other. Inventing and engineering are not synonymous. None of the engineers that design the various types of wheels we have today, have invented the wheel or have tried to do so, yet their contraptions are useful in their own domain and not necessarily applicable in another. Whoever invented the wheel in the first place, I'm sure would be very impressed with gears. That is analogous to someone say about C++, 'why reinventing C?'
  • Create New...