Jump to content

Evan Reiter

Members
  • Content Count

    237
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Evan Reiter last won the day on January 9

Evan Reiter had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

50 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You'll read lots of opinions but for me... If you're interested in pretty visuals, don't mind a few glitches and hiccups as software is updated, and you're okay with somewhat limited support on SIDs/STARs for now, MSFS is a great option. The visual experience is currently the best of the major sims. However, some of the systems and functionality are still being worked on. In the coming months, you'll see a Boeing 737 from PMDG for MSFS, and other "study-level add-ons" are in the works. At that time, I expect more people who are currently thinking MSFS is "not ready" may make a switch. Sev
  2. A lot of people (32%, to be exact) regularly use more than one. You might consider grabbing both to see what you like. As Ross points out, a lot of it depends on what's important in your simulation and the types of aircraft you're looking to fly. My opinions on the matter are here: https://flightsimassociation.com/guides/getting-started/simulator-setup, which also includes a short comparison video of the three simulators. Full disclosure, I'm one of the co-founders of FSA. If you'd like to share some thoughts on the type of simming you plan to do, what aircraft types you want to fly
  3. Agreed, that would be nice; or some sort of feature (in VATSIM's audio or even just in Windows) that could dynamically adjust the volume to a preset level (or just limit volume). I've been searching for something like that but haven't found it. I've had limited success with the following: Setting the volume in the pilot client to -10. Using VoiceMeeter (or just Windows) to turn the volume down to something reasonable and also adjust on the fly as needed. Using "Sound Lock" to try to prevent mass volume spikes. Sound Lock doesn't seem to work flawlessly but I find ha
  4. Good questions! You're correct about the hierarchy. There is a difference between the "visibility range" of the controller and the airspace the controller is working. For Center, the best way to determine the boundary is to use a tool that has an accurate depiction of the airspace shapes. VatSPY and Vattastic along with other network monitoring tools all show the specific boundaries a Center is covering. Here's an example from Vattastic: In some cases, you can find government charts that show Center boundaries (for example, on U.S. IFR charts available at www.skyvector.co
  5. I had a similar issue some time ago. Unfortunately, I don't believe there was ever a resolution. I did notice that the error tended to occur more regularly when I was adding positions (rather than using those that the client was auto-populating based on my login). Maybe that will help you too, a little. I moved a few months after this and haven't had the same issues since.
  6. A very tremendous surprise, and a significant disappointment for all of us. I hope VATSIM's BoG is able to pick up where FLAi left off and arrange something for the membership.
  7. In fairness to VATSIM, I should say that the network was not given a heads' up about this. I expect they will have something official to say in the next little while. Please give them some time to respond.
  8. From my perspective, I generally prefer when pilots make that request (or ask a question) on frequency. Totally appreciate this is down to individual preference but, in my view, there's nothing wrong with asking about a restriction on the frequency. It's easy for us to miss text messages via PM and even easier for people to misconstrue tone of voice on text vs. voice. I will get pilots occasionally not hear my instruction and instead of just saying "say again", they will PM me saying "what was that last instruction?" So I get nervous whenever I hear requests for more private messages. Fo
  9. @Dhruv Kalra, while you're checking on that, would be good to also clarify how/if the heading/speed data transfers between facilities and positions. If this is a real-world feature, it would be nice for it to be added to vERAM. Presently, only the free text transfers between vERAM clients.
  10. I can try to guess at a few things and see if they help. I'm in no way affiliated with the AFV Team and (to borrow a favorite phrase of Don's), I can barely spell "code", let alone write it. For me, the AFV client won't allow changes to settings after it's been connected. I need to choose a PTT once, before connecting. If I try to change the PTT, I usually have to close the entire client and start it again. Make sure you're running the AFV client as administrator. If you do manage to get connected, could you send us a screenshot of AFV when you're trying to transmit?
  11. Recently, VATSIM updated the online flight planning capability allowing for pilots to file ICAO flight plans (now used in most countries for IFR and VFR flight plans) instead of FAA-style flight plans. If you are interested in some background on how/why this happened: Unfortunately, many of the clients (including VatSPY) haven't received a corresponding update. As a result, equipment information you showed above is transmitted and appears as you've seen it. Personally, I don't think it reflects well on the network. And it's a major issue for controllers who use VRC, vSTARS, or vERAM.
  12. Here are BVA's recommendations for setting up MSFS with VATSIM: https://forum.bvartcc.com/uploads/bva/GettingStarted/MSFS/index.html?Page=setup_index.html
  13. @Tim Roden and @Jeremy Werderman, hope this might help: It (sort of) seems like it could be the issue you're describing.
  14. Fully agree with Rob; that's the feedback I've been hearing from several people across a few communities. I don't fly any simulator now, so I don't have a predisposition to one or another. I just report on what I hear! I wrote this opinion article for BVA's Logan Informer back in September. I think it's still as true now as it was then, and is based on a small poll of our members:
  15. I find in the U.S., ARTCCs are less likely to use VATBOOK or Qutescoop, which tend to be more popular in Europe. Here, we've gone back and forth several times over trying to publish ATC availability and generally have come to the consensus that, country-wide, there's just too much variety in individuals' opinions to be able to put something together. ATC being a hobby, there's a lot of people who don't feel comfortable with the idea of "booking". Some ARTCCs, like mine, have created their own systems. In our case, you can find published availability at www.bvartcc.com. I'd say it's about
×
×
  • Create New...