Jump to content

Ryan Parry

Members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. intermittent Now that I am back from vacation I've been able to take a look. I can see the heartbeat and everything seems fine, the disconnects seem to happen when I get a flood of SSDP traffic, I presume for uPnP, or DNS query traffic in between the heartbeat. There is traffic from AFV to me, and then the SSDP/DNS traffic, and then traffic from me to AFV, but that seems like it is the vPilot reconnecting as the time since first frame resets at that point. It happens mostly with SSDP traffic, sometimes DNS, and once it happened with nothing else going on. So for some reason the connection resets when there is an SSDP broadcast. This does not happen every time I get the SSDP traffic though, I can go up to 20~ minutes with these broadcasts happening and stay connected. I have not seen it disconnect under any other circumstances.
  2. Ok, I was able to find the TCP traffic as well, nothing unusual that I can see for voice or the FSD server.
  3. I'm trying to analyze packets on my network to see if there are any issues, I was able to identify AFV traffic using UDP port 50000 but there is too much TCP traffic to make a clear determination as to what is Vatsim/AFV. Am I correct to assume AFV is only using UDP? I had no issues with the traffic I could see while experiencing disconnects.
  4. Out of curiosity, what build of Windows 10 are you on? Did you update all the way to the new 2004 version? I only ask because you're saying this is happening on a new system, and it has occurred to me this started happening after I pushed through the new 2004 update. If you're on W10 Home v2004, I wonder if there is something going on with that version that the AFV Team can chase down.
  5. Same issue, sorry for not posting in the appropriate forum.
  6. I knew I should've checked the vPilot forum first. I'm having a similar issue, started about two days ago.
  7. For the past two days I've been having an issue where I am disconnected from AFV constantly during a flight. It happens on an ATC frequency and on unicom. It's happening every few minutes and extremely annoying, not to mention difficult to talk to ATC when I lose connection like this. I'd post this in vPilot, but this seems like an AFV issue (maybe not?). I'm not losing connection to Vatsim or anything else, it's just the voice server that loses connection and reestablishes connection a few seconds later. Any ideas?
  8. Great event guys! It was the first one for us at ZOA and it was a blast. A big thanks to all those that voted for us, flew into SFO, help staff a few ATC positions, and of course all those who put in the time and energy to make this event happen.
  9. Pilots - On August 16, 2018 the San Francisco Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] Bravo airspace under went a major rework. This means, the Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] Bravo airspace you may see in your simulator will not match what you might find on a sectional. Additionally, you may receive instructions from NORCAL and San Francisco tower that don't make sense with the old Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airspace. It is my hope that this post will help you all understand the changes, procedures, and how we plan to handle this going forward. So what changed, exactly? The entire cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B airspace has been changed. They've created the Bravo to give back what is not needed, and take what is needed. Additionally, the Bravo is no longer based on radials and DME, but rather GPS waypoints. Each corner point of the new cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] Bravo airspace is a GPS waypoint that can be programmed into any FMS or GPS (you will need an AIRAC 1809 update for your FMS, or global FSX/P3D navdata update). The waypoints for each corner can be found on the San Francisco FLY chart, and they start with VPXXX Some of these new waypoints have a name, such as VPOYS which is called Oyster Point, and some do not. So, if you say you're flying to Oyster Point, we expect that you are going to VPOYS. In the case of those without a name simply spell it out using the phonetic alphabet. Those with a name are located directly over the landmark they are named after. The FAA has told us there will be a full list and we will publish it when we can. Does this affect the way I can transition the San Francisco Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] B? Yes. Previously, we'd issue instructions to fly to a landmark, follow a highway, etc. Now we have defined routes that will be [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned. These routes use GPS waypoints that can be programmed into any FMS or GPS (AIRAC 1809+). The routes are as follows... Bayshore Transition 1,500 - 3,500 Pacifica Transition 1,500 - 3,500 Coastline Transition at or above 3,500 When transitioning the Bravo, please state the route and altitude you'd like. You may join these routes at a point, so you do not need to start at the most northern or southern point. For example, a KHAF aircraft may join at Pennisula High school (VPSCS) and transition north or south, but you need to specify you want to join at that point. In addition to the new VFR transition routes, we've also got an ATC [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned Flyway called the Bay Flyway. This is ATC [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned only (which means it requires a bravo clearance, and we can and will deny the request if traffic is too heavy in the bay), and ATC will [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign the altitude. It is broken into a few different parts. If you're going north you can expect to get either the Northwest Bay Flyway, or Northeast Bay Flyway, and if you're going south you can expect the Southwest Bay Flyway or Southeast Bay Flyway. This flyway is located on the San Francisco FLY chart. The other flyways are not ATC [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned and no ATC contact is needed to fly them. ATC is only required for the Bay Flyway. Does this impact other area airports? Yes, a little bit. The Oakland Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] C airspace has been slightly modified. The San Jose Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] C didn't change, however San Jose airport no longer sits under the Bravo, only a portion of the cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] C does. Livermore (LVK) is a lot closer to the Bravo, so pilots are encouraged to be prepared for that and plan around it. San Carlos (SQL) had a minor change as well but it isn't something I think most will notice. What do I do if I have the old Bravo and want to fly in it? How can I get the new airspace? Please mention it to the controller. We realize that not everybody will have the new airspace, but unless we know what you have we can't help you. Since the new airspace is the current, that is what we will be operating off of. If you fly with Foreflight connected to your sim, you will be able to use the new airspace. Additionally, I am told that fsAerodata will update FSX and P3D native airspace to have the new Bravo (I have not tested that yet). I doing what I can to inform Lockheed Martin about the airspace so that they will include it in a future update of P3D. Last, I am reading around FSDeveloper trying to figure out how to create it myself so we can distribute it to everybody for free, so far it's been slow. The GPS waypoints used to create the Bravo and the VFR Transitions routes are available to everybody through your 1809 AIRAC update provided by Navigraph ot Navdata Pro. To update FSX and P3D navigation you can use the FSX/P3D World Naviads Package (at the time of writing this it is still 1808, but will be 1809 soon). If you have further questions please feel free to ask, we're happy to help! Email us at [email protected]
  10. It doesn't have to do with a rate of climb, it's the airspace and route itself. We have very specific routings (that have very specific altitudes) within the Norcal airspace that allow traffic to flow efficiently from sector to sector, airport to airport, without too much, if any, conflict. For SFO-SMF, both jets and turboprops have the same route and the same altitude. The issue is trying to create a hole in the m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive conga line from the south. A hole must be created by either center or approach, and the SFO departure must be launched at the right time in order for it to all meet up and work out. Take a look at this graphic (though it is based on old procedures, the new RNAV ones follow them nearly the same). As you can see, depending on what runway you depart, there are "hoops" to jump through. Off of runway 1R, you're climbing under "down the bay" SFO arrivals, but above Oakland arrivals. From runway 28L/R (OP in the Kingair was 28R at E), you're climbing under SFO arrivals, over Oakland departures, but under SFO departures from 1R. So, as you can see, simply climbing jets over him wasn't a solution, and the options for additional vectors in these high traffic events can be sp[Mod - Happy Thoughts]. After getting past all of this the aircraft head over a small corridor that is a shelf between Norcal and Travis AFB. Typically, we do not want our traffic in the military airspace, though some VFR traffic does go down there on their own. In this corridor there isn't a ton of space to vector, and as I said before the route has the same altitude for both jets and turboprops, so separating by altitude isn't an option in this location. Yes, we can technically climb jets up higher, but that'll certainly leave the guy in the jet too high later on, which will create more work for our final controller (who is already swamped). That leaves you with speed, which takes time to develop. You've also got to get the CCR sequenced with the SUUTR stream, or you're going to create a giant mess that potentially interferes with the departures taking off from SMF. You can take a look at this graphic that shows the traffic flows for SMF when landing south. If you look to the middle of the two purple dashed lines, that's SMF. We can't start sending aircraft left right and center into a departure corridor, so the sequencing requires a bit of coordination. It is for these reasons, the complex bay airspace, the over saturated SUUTR stream, and tight restrictive airspace, that we had bay area departures on a "call for release". They weren't releasing this aircraft, so he had to wait. We did this so we could try to coordinate the traffic and avoid creating m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive issues. It's clearly a lose-lose for us controllers. If we launch every plane and create a m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive mess with aircraft going in every direction, holds, m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive delays, we gets forum posts/ feedback/ nasty emails. If we try to do it right and coordinate the traffic to ensure a smooth event for everybody with minimal delays, well as you see we still get complaints.
  11. In this situation ATC did sort it out. When it was realized that the filed route wasn't going to work any time soon, it was remedied by issuing an alternate departure so that the king air could be worked into the sequence. Also, "Let the jets climb above the Kingair and all issues are solved" isn't true for this airspace in particular.
  12. Hi Mark, Alex pretty much hit the nail on the head. We had bay area departures on "call for release", so basically tower had to get a release before you could take off. Finding you a slot in the "conga line" is difficult to do without the tools that exist in the real world, so you ended up having a delay. Allowing you to take off and then vectoring you in circles until we can fit you is no solution, and in fact may make the situation worse for you, the other traffic, and the controllers. Sometimes, non-standard, alternate routes work better, and it sounds like you got rerouted to fit the needs of the airspace. I'm sorry for the frustrating delay and I hope you'll still come fly with us again in the future.
  13. I don't know if it is in there but.. E170 = Embraer 170-100 E75S = Embraer 170-200 standard winglet (aka old Embraer 175) E75L = Embraer 170-200 long winglet (aka shiny new Embraer 175) There is no such thing as E175, it should point to E75S or E75L, but I realzie not everybody has models updated for that so E170 was the old code it used before the change happened.
  14. In v1 there was the .testmodelmatching that allowed to me test the custom rule sets. It appears that command no longer works. Has it been removed, or is there another way to test the rulesets? It's really helpful in helping me identify mistakes I've made. Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...