Jump to content

Ryan Parry

Members
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ryan Parry

  1. I've been using the new prefile since it launched, I'm enjoying it! I use the ICAO format for the 121 airline I work for in the US, so it's nice to have somthing familiar. I'm flying out of China today and they use meters, VATPRC asks that pilots file in meters so my release is in meters initially with a step climb to imperial when I leave PRC. The prefile import didn't read the meters or speed in my flight plan though, could this be fixed? I pasted my ATS strip in from PFPX. Here is the first part of it, I assume this is the part that gets read by the importer for speed and cruising alt
  2. My ISP provided modem was giving me headaches and showing a lot of uncorrectable codes and they refused to fix it, so I decided to take matters into my own hands and I bought my own modem. I've been connected to Vatsim for about an hour and a half and not a single AFV disconnect. So it wasn't the router, my settings, W10 update, it ended up being the modem. I will say it does seem that AFV is awfully sensitive.
  3. There is a button in the upper right that says "Process ICAO FPL". You can paste your ICAO flight plan from PFPX or Simbrief and it puts everything where it needs to go. Pretty intuitive in my opinion.
  4. Did anybody do anything server side to AFV at 8-21-2020 around 1900z? I was mid flight on a long haul and suddenly was able to make it about 45 minutes without any disconnection from AFV. Much better than the usual disconnect every 5-15 minutes. It returned for a few minutes and then I went another 40 minutes without a drop. It unfortunately came back after that.
  5. I've tried both ethernet ports and no luck, and I have the latest driver. With what seems to be "many" people having this issue, I'm thinking it's either a common router setting conflicting with something about AFV, or something that changed with AFV (if anything did). I did a long haul over the Atlantic with no issues and the next day started experiencing this and it hasn't stopped since. My only change was a Windows update.
  6. 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 connect
  7. Ok, I was able to find the TCP traffic as well, nothing unusual that I can see for voice or the FSD server.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Same issue, sorry for not posting in the appropriate forum.
  11. I knew I should've checked the vPilot forum first. I'm having a similar issue, started about two days ago.
  12. 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?
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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 i
  16. 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.
  17. 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 n
  18. 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.
  19. 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!
  20. I am the creator of that package and I absolutely have requested permission.
  21. Honestly, this entire thread just pains me to read. Asking people to p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] an exam on the PRC or even just the CoC isn't exactly a huge deal. It forces a new member to expose themselves to the rules of the network rather than clicking a "yes" button. Will it hurt membership? Maybe but I don't care. I don't want to share this network with people who don't care about following the rules, sorry. I'm all for educating new members, after all that's how I've gotten to the point I am at, but there is a distinct difference between a new member wanting to learn and somebody that
  22. It looks as if for Week 49 and 50 NY_APP won, but in Week 48 it was KJFK NY Kennedy Approach (NY_CAM_APP), which is different. If all of the NY sectors are being counted as one then there needs to be a change for ZOA's NORCAL Approach and ZLA's SOCAL Approach. If New York has created something like a "combined" sector that works ALL of the N90 TRACON like ZOA and ZLA do, then it needs to be made clear that this is a combined sector and that the Combined sector won on its own. Right now it appears as if all of the NY sectors were combined together. If it is a new combined sector, but all of the
  23. This is a really simple issue. Whether it is an airport closure, tower closure, or runway closure, I let the pilots decide what they want to do and everybody is happy. It's mostly a small airport thing, like a cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] D, and if I have multiple aircraft coming in it adds to the work load to simulate two different things, but I don't mind. "XYZ Airport is closed due to ABC, if you'd like to simulate please advise". "XYZ tower is closed, if you'd like to simulate please advise".
  24. EDIT: Since it doesn't seem like this is going to be checked and updated until next year, I went ahead and downloaded the updated file in this thread and updated it with the remaining requests. You can download the file HERE. Added Added All added Also added the NORCAL and SOCAL Combined positions to the San Francisco/ Bay Area and Los Angles area.
×
×
  • Create New...