Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/02/20 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    VATSIM Middle East would like to announce after discussions with the VATAME regional director that we have merged parts of the North African Division with our Middle East Division. This was done to keep parts of the vACCs within an active division as we slowly close the North African division. This means that members will now be part of the VATSIM Middle East Division (VATME) for the following vACCs: Algeria vACC Chad vACC Eritrea vACC Ethiopia vACC Libya vACC Morocco vACC Niger vACC Somalia vACC Sudan vACC Tunisia vACC NOTE: vACCs marked in bold are vACCs that have staff meaning you will be required to contact them for ATC training / visiting. vACCs not marked in bold are considered as OpenAirspace, members wishing to control these area's will have to wait until the HQ has been adapted to accept these vACCs as part of our OpenSkies program. Members will slowly be re-assigned to the VATSIM Middle East Division by the regional staff. We invite members who haven't done so to login to our VATAME HQ system where you can find many features and guides for vACC Information, ATC Training and much more! VATSIM Middle East will now be known as the VATSIM Middle East & North Africa Division. Members are also encouraged to join the VATSIM Middle East & North Africa Discord which you can join with this invite link: https://discord.gg/Hvxm5Ky, if you have any questions to the divisional team you may contact them via [email protected] and we will get back to you as soon as possible!
  2. 4 points
    Hi all Over the last 24 hours I have been in discussion with VATAME Regional staff . The decision has been made that VATNAF will be closed and the airspace will be split between VATSAF and VATME. This was a decision that was thought about and discussed thoroughly as we want to provide the best service we can for our members. Please see a map below of how the VATSAF and VATME Divisions will look from now on
  3. 3 points
    I launched xPilot in October of last year with the goal of creating an intuitive X-Plane pilot client for VATSIM. Today, I am very excited to announce that I am moving the xPilot project to open source — available on GitHub here. If you're interested in contributing to the future development of xPilot, I encourage you to read the Contributing Guide.
  4. 2 points
    Version 1.3.21 of xPilot is now available for download from the web site, or via the automatic update utility built into the pilot client (if you have the "Alpha" update channel selected in the settings). The following items were changed, added or fixed in this version: xPilot is now open-source Client configuration file is now serialized in JSON. Upgrades from earlier versions will require reconfiguration. Add volume knob control override option Add option to change the aircraft label distance Improve NetMQ message queuing Update XPMP2 library It is very important that you close X-Plane completely before installing xPilot. Failure to do so will prevent xPilot from being installed correctly. This version marks the first Stable version of xPilot since its initial release. I did not anticipate keeping xPilot in beta/alpha for such an extended time, but I felt now was a good time to transition its development stage as to not keep tagging it as a "perpetual beta". I believe for the most part all of the major issues that caused crashes have now been addressed. If your X-Plane does crash and the log suggests that xPilot was the culprit, please file a bug report.
  5. 2 points
    Hey guys great news, Norton has unblocked xpilot-project.org website and advised it's safe. Obviously it was a false positive. Surprised they were so quick to it. So i updated my antivirus definitions and boom it's unblocked. So anyone with norton anti virus or norton core routers will be able to have access to the site with no issues. @Nestor Perez yea i tried that didnt work when it was blocked haha. @Justin Shannon thanks for all your help.
  6. 2 points
    I meant to say that, in real life, CPDLC use in the enroute environment is very rare in the US; a few airspaces have experimented with it from time-to-time but it's by no means a common thing. On the network, yes, most VATUSA facilities will simulate the use of CPDLC/PDC clearances via a private message. I'm not aware of any US facilities that are using the Hoppie client.
  7. 2 points
    It seems quite a lot of work to do, especially when you probably will be the only one who uses it. I suggest you learn how to use VRC which is fairly easy actually. By using the clients the local facility is developing files for, you are also able to use more updated files.
  8. 2 points
    VATSIM is delighted to annouce two major news items today. The first is our new branding and logo as seen above. We will be rolling out more information on the logo in the coming days as well as a branding guide to our members that have a need to use our new look. The second is that we have been working with the team at Microsoft and Asobo Studios for some time and are happy to annouce that VATSIM will be compatable with Microsoft Flight Simulator upon launch on August 18th, 2020. As we celebrate the next generation of Flight Simulation with Microsoft, we're announcing the start of VATSIM's next chapter with a fresh new look. Over the next few weeks, we will be announcing some amazing updates to our community that will really drive the meaning of our new tagline, "Aviate. Educate. Communicate."
  9. 1 point
    As they say: RTFM 🙂
  10. 1 point
  11. 1 point
    If you can, update your Navigation Database 😉
  12. 1 point
    Inspired by the beautiful prairies, welcome to Winnipeg's first Saskatoon-themed event! We're inviting all pilots - GA, Jets, Helicopters, whatever you've got - to come visit CYXE on the 15th for a day of flying! Take a short hop to Regina (CYQR), cross the border to Winnipeg (CYWG) or just go for a short flight to see the sights - this event has something for everyone! The party all starts at 2100z, and we'll have the FIR staffed until 0000z. We can't wait to see you there!
  13. 1 point
    Although sad to see them go, I can understand it. My hat is off to them… Phenomenal work done on the “dark side” of the network… All the best..
  14. 1 point
    Aidan Stevens, Vice President - Technical Development and Zach Biesse-Fitton, Vice President - Web Services have announced their intentions to retire from VATSIM’s Board of Governors. While we are sad to see them leave the Board of Governors, we are excited that both intend to pursue other roles within VATSIM and deliver the changes we have been working so hard to bring to production. Zach’s retirement from the Board of Governors corresponds to his desire to return to his home division in a senior leadership role as interim division director for VATPAC. Zach also wishes to allow a new member of the network to step up and continue to push and progress the technology further, with new skill and motivation. Aidan's departure from the Board of Governors will allow him to refocus his significant technical strengths and focus on other duties within the network. While Aidan and Zach’s departures leave chairs to fill on the Board of Governors, our network development has never been stronger. They have done a phenomenal job to organize great teams with strong leaders for all of our new technologies under development. These teams continue to work hard every day and will continue to do so. We want to officially thank Aidan and Zach for all of the work they’ve done during their time on the Board of Governors. They have led us through some of the most significant technical changes the network has seen in its history and have set up a succession plan to ensure that we do not lose any ground on our projects under development. We wish them the best in the new roles they have chosen to take within VATSIM, and thank them for their continued dedication to our network.
  15. 1 point
    One other thing, Manny, relative to the initial post. Most (but not all) intersection names will loosely be evident in the 5-letter coded name. Such as HLLRY would be Hillary or an adulterated spelling such as BRYNN for Bryan. And as stated by Josh, if you are unsure ask the controller to repeat or spell the intersection name. As for Navigraph, it is most definitely an active and current pay service. You should go to Navigraph.com.
  16. 1 point
    Congratulations Ali on your new position!!
  17. 1 point
    Whether or not you sort out the visibility issue, note that formation flying on VATSIM is next to impossible because of position latency on the order of around 5-6 seconds. That is, when you see other players, you're not seeing where they are now; you're seeing where they were 5-6 seconds ago. You might feel you're flying wing-to-wing with your buddy at 120kts, but your buddy will actually be around 1200ft ahead of you -- and to him, you'll appear a further 1200ft behind that!
  18. 1 point
  19. 1 point
    The return of Eastern Air Lines, L-1011 Tristar during the twilight of FSX:SE.
  20. 1 point
    Typically speaking ATC won’t give you directs to fixes or waypoints that are not on your flight plan or SID/STAR. From there it’s just a matter of selecting that in the FMC/GPS. Even the default FSX GPS can do a direct to a waypoint so take a look and see if you can figure out how to do it on said aircraft without pausing for long (or even at all if you can help it). So when I fly into or out of an airport I’m not familiar with I always brief myself on the possible SIDs/STARs I could receive based on my flight plan (usually your first enroute waypoint for SIDs and your last enroute waypoint for STARs). This works pretty good with airports that have RNAV or hybrid SIDs/STARs. Even with airports that only have vector SIDs (e.g. Vancouver) it may help to read the names of ALL the possible SIDs you might receive so you at least somewhat recognize the name of the SID when you pick up your clearance. The nice thing is there usually aren’t too many vector SIDs at an airport, and in North America (not sure about Europe) I’ve found that the most commonly used vector SID usually starts with the airport/VOR name. Another thing you can do if there are multiple aircraft going to the same destination as you or in a similar direction as you are, listen to what SIDs they are getting cleared on cause there’s a good chance you’ll get the same thing. One final tip is to look at the runways in use (ATIS) and that will allow you to eliminate any of the SIDs/STARs that only apply to the inactive runways. Although it can still be confusing from time to time, being prepared and having an idea as to what to expect goes a long way. Hopefully the above tips help you out with that a little. Remember there is no harm asking a controller to repeat a part of a clearance or a direction. It’s much better that you do that then pretend to understand or read back something you obviously can’t do and end up causing havoc in the controller’s airspace. If you can’t find or comply with a SID, ask for vectors. If you can’t comply with the instruction at all the magic word isn’t ‘please’. It’s ‘unable’. Don’t be afraid to use it when it’s justified. Again a controller would rather know sooner than later if you are going to follow his instructions or not. Hope this helps you out a little! Cheers!
  21. 1 point
    But PDC is used heavily (in the real world), even in the US (from my own experience), although VATSIM USA does deliver PDC via private chat messages instead of Hoppie, which also works fine enough.
  22. 1 point
    Since you asked about countries, I can say that CPDLC is not used much, if at all, in the U.S. (either real-world or on the network).
  23. 1 point
    Hi all -- I've previously pointed out on this forum that a few recent changes to the technical delivery of services to users have been made without warning or announcement. The most egregious examples in my opinion have been the shutdown of the SYD server, the sudden depreciation of XSquawkBox 1.3 to "unauthorized client software" status, and the archival of historical user flightplan data. (In fairness, the pending depreciation of the older XSB was known to be coming since it did not have low-FPS detection -- but that discussion had gone on for months, and when the decision was finally made, it was without advance warning. The other two I mentioned were done with no forward communication, leaving users to figure out what happened only after the fact by posting questions here.) Last night, xPilot 1.2.1 -- which, since January, has been the only version considered non-Alpha -- suddenly and without warning became "unauthorized client software." I found this morning by browsing the VATSIM Facebook group that for at least one user this occurred *mid-flight.* Is there anything the userbase can do to get some improved advance communication on such topics, please?
  24. 1 point
    Everything that could go wrong seems to be going wrong today I've restarted, reinstalled multiple times. I'll try once more and see.
  25. 1 point
    Wow... calm down mate! It’s not the end of the world. There is a small bug that is causing this for some people - restarting xPilot seems to fix it. Join us on Discord and we can get you sorted out if you’re still having troubles.
  26. 1 point
    I completely dropped the ball on this one, so I take full responsibility and blame for it. I made the decision to deprecate old versions of xPilot for three reasons: I'm not providing support or maintaining the code for older versions any longer To keep xPilot from being stuck in a "perpetual" beta state To open the xPilot codebase
  27. 1 point
    35+ years into the hobby and just about 10 on VATSIM, and I'm still learning!
  28. 1 point
    Hey folks, had a quick question. The other day I was flying VFR from Grand bahama to Palm Beach. When I contacted Nassau center who was handling ground/tower, he told me a VFR flight plan was required. Just wondering why this was? I didn't think VFR flight plans were a required thing? Edit: Did some research, looks like that it is required in IRL so this was a good learning experience. https://www.bahamas.com/vfr "A good pilot is always learning"
  29. 1 point
    Also -- didn't FSX have so-called "realism settings" where you could dial in your preferred level of p-factor, torque effects, and so forth? It's possible that some of what we've seen has intentionally been done on "easy mode" so the narrator could focus less on flying and more on showcasing the visuals. All these questions will be answered in less than three weeks... 😉
  30. 1 point
    Published on the #VATSIMevents calendar and VATSIM Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/vatsimnet. https://www.vatsim.net/events/eddf-frankfurt-friday
  31. 1 point
  32. 1 point
    Same here. Spent two decades at the top of the industry. I guess it's not a surprise we'd see this the same way. They've done so many little things in addition to the big things that they've earned the time to mature this. Now don't get me wrong. If they put out a product that's say, buggy as hell, then that would be a mistake. However, a product that's lacking some features? No problem. Take your time. We'll have enough to keep us busy until you get there. Plus, there's the obvious factor we cannot ignore: This is Microsoft involved with one of the most iconic and storied products in the history of computing. Flight Simulator has ALWAYS been worth so much more to them and the industry than simply looking at the profit margin. They may botch it, but I'd be SHOCKED if it was from a lack of trying. Look at one of the examples we've seen: Flight planning. This v1 product includes FREE, UPDATED AIRAC data that supplies SIDs and STARs for any route if you want it. Is it as good as some of the top flight planners? No, but you don't get what this has in FSX, P3D or XP out of the box. That shows an incredible commitment to this not being another "Flight" debacle. I predict that if they put this out and, IF the community SCREAMS about flight models, that the devs will jump all over that and begin to resolve it sooner than later, after any show-stoppers that are likely to materialize from releasing into the larger community. It's not easy to excite a bunch of seniors about a game. Microsoft has done it. If this delivers, it'll be one for the history books.
  33. 1 point
    Thanks for confirming. I have to say I'm glad I joined, my only regret is I didn't do it sooner. So far each flight I've done there has been some takeaway of knowledge.
  34. 1 point
    This task is not possible until we are fully off the old system, as it requires rearchitecting some backend stuff. We are slowly moving towards this goal, I can see this feature being possible within 2-3 months. Will keep you updated on this thread.
  35. 1 point
    From: https://www.vatsim.net/pilot-resource-centre/vatsim-basics/important-rules Important Rules 3. Pilots need to check regularly whether they are flying through controlled (live staffed) airspace. Pilots shall ideally make contact with ATC before entering controlled airspace, or as soon as possible if a controller logs on while crossing through that controller’s airspace. You should have made contact with the controller. This is a very old chestnut on the VATSIM network. However: From the Code of Conduct"; section: "B3(a) - Pilots shall monitor their flights at all times. It is the responsibility of the pilot to check for, and make timely contact with appropriate air traffic controllers. This includes making prompt contact when requested to do so." https://www.vatsim.net/documents/code-of-conduct
  36. 1 point
    Hi all, for those of you who are still, again or are interested in using Qutescoop (this is a link), I have updated the airspace data of almost the entire world. You will be able to see almost all CTR and FSS stations displayed correctly. You never heard about Qutescoop? It's an old, but really good program, that will show you the current status of ATC and pilots at VATSIM in both graphical, but also in tabular way. You can search, list and display ATC bookings from VATBOOK. You can search for flightplan routes from vroute and then display them on the map. Here are two sample screenshots taken moments ago: By clicking onto one of the ATC station labels you can retrieve all the information about this controller. Zoomed into the London area to check who is online where and responsible for what airspace. It should be rather accurate, at least according to the data sources that I have used. See next chapter for more information on this. Data Sources Most airspace data have been copied and converted from the VatSpy Client Data Update Project. While doing so, I realized that its data is also not 100% accurate in some areas of the world which forced me to download, examine and convert current sector files of vACCs from around the world which was quite time consuming. It would be great if all vACCs would regularly propagate airspace data to the VatSpy Client Data Update Project if they make significant changes. Download You can download a zip-file containing three .dat-files here: DOWNLOAD QT_data_20JUL2020.zip Installation proceed to the AppData directory where Qutescoop is storing its basic data. In Windows by default this is C:\Users\UserName\AppData\Local\QuteScoop\QuteScoop\data to make it easy, create a backup of the entire \data\ directory, just in case something goes terribly wrong unzip QT_data_xxxxxxx.zip and extract the 3 files - firlist.dat - firdisplay.dat - airports.dat into the \data\ directory, replace the existing legacy files with the new files Known Issues There are some minor technical limitations of Qutescoop that we cannot correct at this time. Before I will explain them briefly, the good news is that some of the old developers of Qutescoop are again around and may improve the product, personal time and motivation permitting. Qutescoop only looks at the "prefixes" of CTR and FSS stations, but it does not consider the type of station at all. For example, in the Azores there's both LPPO_CTR and LPPO_FSS. The CTR station is a radar control station that is responsible for the islands and TMAs around them, while the FSS station is a non-radar position that controls the entire Oceanic airspace of "Santa Maria". Qutescoop cannot make a difference between LPPO_CTR and LPPO_FSS and will display the airspace of the first one, regardless whether CTR or FSS is actually online. I have resorted to giving priority to the FSS station. As a consequence you have to make sure that you have a look at who is actually online LPPO_CTR or LPPO_FSS (or both). Whatever LPPO station will be online, Qutescoop will be showing the greater of the two airspaces (LPPO_FSS). This is how the sector data looks like with a SectorViewer Tool from DLMN: The same is happening in Canada at CZQX: CTR (domestic) vs. FSS (Oceanic). In this case I have given priority to the CTR station that usually covers both the domestic airspace of Gander (CZQX_CTR) and Moncton (CZQM_CTR). The consequence is now that even if CZQX_FSS is online, Qutescoop will show the combined domestic airspace of CZQX_CTR, not the Oceanic airspace. Again: you have to click on the label of the station and check whether it is actually CZQX_CTR or CZQX_FSS: If you think that it would be better to give priority to FSS over CTR, let me know and I can change it - or you can also change it yourself. AIRAC NavData Updates If you would like to update Qutescoop's NavData, you'll need to download current data for X-Plane 10 (not X-Plane 11!). Qutescoop stores NavData in your main program path: Drive:\xxxxxxx\qutescoop\Resources\default data Extract the files into this directory, you will need earth_awy.dat, earth_fix.dat and earth_nav.dat. Feedback If you spot mistakes, errors or inaccurate airspace data, comment here below and I will try to improve it. If you would like to participate in up keeping the data, let me know - help will always be welcome. Serious offers only, please. Enjoy! Changelog: 20 JUL 2020: updated airports.dat and new London LTC-sectors 30 JUN 2020: added NavData update instructions 20 JUL 2020: all new Airport database added
  37. 1 point
    Due to a number of issues, notice is hereby given that the Iron Mic competition has been suspended until further notice. The future of the competition is being discussed at the VATSIM Board of Governors Meeting next Saturday and the final decision on its future will be released with the minutes of that meeting. The results published for Week 26, will be the final results published pending the decision of the BoG. No correspondence in respect of the reasons for this will be entered into.
  38. 1 point
    Where did you see that sector online? Was it VATSpy? Is your VATSpy data up to date? The problem that VATSpy has is that it doesn't always reflect the actual sector splits correctly (depending on your data set). Regions/Divisions will sometimes change the sectors to suit better their needs from time to time and that isn't always reflected. Also, the drawing of the sectors can sometimes be inaccurate. If we take the UK for example - some work has been done to show some of the newly available low level sectors on VATSpy correctly. However, there remains an issue with the upper sectors because of the sector names and how VATSpy handles the underscores in them (or not!). As such, you could be coming from Belgium/Holland/NE France to the UK, see that there's a controller on but in fact, they're only covering the Western side of the country (LON_W_CTR - the area in green HERE). As someone who controls in that sector, it's quite the norm to get someone calling up near XAMAN in the yellow sector because VATSpy shows the entire London FIR as being online. Similarly, some low level sectors were, earlier this year, made available to be opened without upper level cover - so different LTC_*, MAN_CTR and STC_CTR sectors can open and cover up to no higher than FL245 (depending on the sector). Again, depending on the VATSpy dataset you're using, these used to show as covering a wider "full" area which would give the impression that you're flying through the sector when in fact you're flying over it. Moving into mainland Europe and the German sectors have always confused the hell out of me with VATSpy! Andreas is your man to explain these (to me also! 😛 ) but what you see on VATSpy doesn't necessarily marry up with what's actually happening. This is why I asked which sectors you were talking about so that, rather than this long winded "well it could be this, it could be that..." post, someone who controls in that Division can tell you exactly what the setup is and perhaps explain why you didn't speak to a controller. In the end it could be that they were simply too busy to handle something overflying against low level traffic - but without the where and when (even just the where), no-one will be able to explain what or why it happened...
  39. 1 point
    With regret yesterday I accepted the resignation of Mr Saad Belouafi as Regional Director of the Africa Middle East Region. In just over two years in the role Saad has bought the region a significant way and under his leadership there have been significant developments in both Northern and Southern Africa, as well as the Middle East. On behalf of VATSIM and the Board of Governors I wish to publically thank Saad fo all his efforts and wish him well for the future. Jackson Harding VP Regions
  40. 1 point
    Disclaimer: This is a sporadic PSA from my own experiences as a beginner, controller and supervisor on VATSIM. These are my own personal opinions, and does in no way reflect VATSIM's official stance on the issue. Writing this because I don't want to get in trouble, k thanks. -- We have all been there, some just don't want to realize it. No matter who you are, how many hours you have or what the first three digits of your CID reads, we have all been through that palm-sweating frustration of not daring to press the PTT to ask for a clearance. Who hasn't felt the desperation when you couldn't understand an ATC instruction and didn't have the guts to admit it, only to mumble your way through it and hope he wouldn't catch up on it. As a supervisor I come across users with different amount of experience every session, and not once has an hour passed without me having to talk to or handle a beginner. And every time, i understand the situation they're in. A lot of people are afraid when the message from _SUP comes through, but fear not - we're only here to help. I will go to great extent to help beginners, give them advice, links, and follow them up on email afterwards if I have the time to do so. That is my duty, and my passion. Of course there are situations where a "newbie" can ruin for other users, such as departing without contacting the controller at EGKK during peak hours, where I have to take action to avoid major inconvenience for other people. If you are able to put yourself in his or her spot, you will see how frustrating, scary and nervous an experience like that might be. So from my experiences, I have some advice to other controllers on how to approach such situations. To controllers handling beginners: Out of the 1000+ hours I have gathered in my time as a controller, I can't recall how many times I've pulled my hair in frustration by beginners not following my instructions. Sometimes, it can feel like it will ruin the whole controlling session. And after walloping several times without response, you go to VATSPY, open the ATC tab, and see that…. WHAT, NO SUPERVISORS ONLINE?!?!?! My, oh my, do I remember that. But after some time, I started remembering things I had forgotten (or surpressed) from my time as a beginner on the network. From not understanding the top-down principle, not know what an IFR flight means etc... Unfortunately for me, VATSIM Stats saves all of that. 😕 Controllers; believe it or not. YOU are the face of VATSIM. Not the supervisors, not the BoG, not the people behind the scenes. YOU are the first person new pilots will talk to, and if you don't think about how you approach them - you might be the last one as well. Some controllers I've told this to tells me "it's not my job to teach pilots how to talk to ATC". And yes you are correct, BUT... Even though it's not your responsibility to teach them and hold their virtual hand through the virtual skies, how you act can be the difference between them staying and expanding their knowledge and their hobby through VATSIM, or being too scared to ever reconnect. Most of you do this very well - kudos to you. A good tip to everyone, use aliases. Whenever I talk to a beginner, I give them two links. The PRC (vats.im/prc), and the CoC (vats.im/coc). The holy grail of beginnerland. If you're like me and lacks creativity, copy this into your alias file: The great myth of the wallop If you find yourself in a position where a beginner poses a conflict, or you are unsure what to do, never be afraid to wallop for a supervisor. I have heard about vACC/ARTCC's having policies about when you can and cannot wallop, which I question - but that is a different topic. A "wallop" is simply a way to send a message to online supervisors in order to notify them for assistance. Both pilots and Controllers can utilize this, and it is the same format across all clients. In order to send a wallop, write this into your scratchpad/text Box: Far too often I see people simply typing things like .wallop help, which gives us no way of prioritizing the case before initiating contact. That leads to a lot of lost time. Try giving a brief description of what is happening along with the callsign of the user - so we can get started right away instead of you having to write it all once more. A good example of a wallop is something like this: If I get a wallop like that, I can take immediate action instead of having to assess the situation because of lack of information. TL;DR Beginners aren't all that bad. Controllers are front figures. If you haven't got time to handle it yourself - wallop.
  41. 1 point
    Those tools should be taken away from those that abuse them, not from everybody.
  42. 1 point
    Great point Andreas! I cannot find myself prioritizing on text pilots almost immediately. With a sector like EURW_FSS, its almost impossible for me to even reply to a text pilot within 5 mins these days. The current traffic levels in VATSIM is huge, you can hop on a weekday to get 60+ pilots in sectors such as EURW around 12z! However, the only thing that kills my motivation in controlling such sectors are those pilots that complain that the text reply times are too delayed, then mentions that i'm not doing my job well. I set my target reply time within 2-5 mins depending on the sector load. But sometimes its impossible for me to achieve that when there are pilots constantly calling on the frequency via voice.
  43. 1 point
    174/5000 Good evening, Thanks. Resolved FSINN 1.3b FSCOPILOT 1.7b I found some active servers yet. Thank you again. VAT617 (VatBrasil617) TB-04 (Bravo Bull Squad)
  44. 1 point
    Ok, then you have not been to VATSIM for a while. a) last year all servers have been replaced, so FsInn won't find any and you'll have to enter IPs manually. Search the forum for solutions, you'll find them b) also last year the old voice-codec was replaced by AFV - Audio for VATSIM - and when using outdated pilot clients you'll have to use a seperate program to run voice: https://audio.vatsim.net/docs/2.0/home I also suggest you give the new client "swift" a chance, it is somewhat similar to FsInn and is the only actively developed client that will work with FS9, too. The good news about it are that AFV is included in it already, no need to download and use the AFV-client. https://dev.swift-project.org/ For the time being use the latest public ALPHA of swift: https://datastore.swift-project.org/page/publicartifacts.php A bunch of video tutorials to get you started:
  45. 1 point
    There are board of governor members who don’t come on the forum for >3months. How do they stay in touch with the issues. I congratulate Gunnar for speaking his mind, if we had more leaders who would care to engage with members, we would have a better place.
  46. 1 point
    If the sitting VATSIM President says the rule isn't effective as currently written, maybe it should be changed...?
  47. 1 point
    I have to support Oliver's point here. From my personal experience, when I log onto a busy sector I do NOT want the pilots to start contacting me as soon as they see me online. I first elaborate a "plan" of who will I contact first and who will I contact next, depending on the neighbouring sectors online, other pilots/aircraft around, their destinations, time left until they start descent, etc... it's all about priorities really. If pilots started contacting me as soon as they saw me online, it would just be a chaos of people blocking one another, and possibly not in order of priority at all. As Oliver says, yes, it is in the CoC, but that doesn't necessarilly mean it is practical or useful at all. In addition, there is no central place a pilot can check to see with perfection what airspace he/she is in. "Oh, but there's charts, Néstor". Yes, true, and there's also fictional sectors, and non-existant ones, and "bandboxed" sectors, etc... As things stand currently, I really struggle to see the smart side of making it the pilot's responsibility to contact ATC on their own. Maybe in the future, once it's easy (and accurate) for members to know which airspace they're in I will understand everyone else's poimt. Until then, I stand with Oliver.
  48. 1 point
    The horror! A pilot having charts and having some sense of accountability as to where they are at, and where they are in relationship to a given airspace? Might have to put down the sandwich, pause Netflix, and back out of the Fortnite game to do that. Which part of "There's someone (the controller) who can easily push one button since he knows exactly when an aircraft enters the sector" is this hard to understand? I'm not talking about low flying, crossing bravo, charlie, delta airspace where detailed charts are available. Observing airspaces is of course the duty of the pilot. I'm talking about IFR enroute in the FL-range. It makes absolutely no sense to ask the pilot to observe complex ATC sectors (not airspace cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]) and do "guesswork" as stated in this thread. Yes, I know: It's in the CoC. But stating this fact over and over again doesn't help - it doesn't make sense at all. We take a problem that's totally Vatsim related, and out of two "vatsimisms" as possible solution we choose the one that has no logical explanation and means extra workload for one side, while the other solution wouldn't mean ANY increase in workload for the other side I'm sorry, but: This is totally stupid and egoistic for no reason at all. And there are sectors where this "guesswork" means more workload for the controller as well. It creates unnecessary calls and browsing through flight plans, just to find out, that the aircraft will miss your airspace by 150 NM (the prefix is the same, the airspace is divided). If I know the airspace, being 100% sure I'll be entering, I contact the controller. If I'm not or simply don't check that list (I don't have it on top all of the time), I'll rely on the controller pushing one single button. We're a community, different people, different backgrounds, different degrees of knowledge. The only reason not to send out a contact me message as ATC is a high workload. The only other "reason" I see is arrogance. The latter should not find its place in our hobby
  49. 1 point
    Thanks for that Don. I was aware of FSInn's impending demise but, after a reinstall of FS9, I wanted a quick online session without the need of learning the ins and outs of the new Swift client. I know that I will have to give in at some point Thanks again Stuart
  50. 1 point
    Try here: https://web.archive.org/web/20160831111911/https://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=20466&sid=95a471f627a507b135482fb290aa77a7 Just making sure, though, before you invest any time in FSInn, though, that you are aware that FSInn's days on VATSIM are numbered, right? In the next some number of weeks, FSInn will no longer be usable on VATSIM when the refresh rate architecture is released.
  • Create New...