Jump to content

Evan Reiter

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. Have you tried running the installer "as Administrator"?
  2. Yes, good idea...although make sure that you are also keeping the controller up-to-date. If you don't answer the controller and instead send a PM, especially when we're busy, it might be easy to miss. Then we're going to be thinking you haven't heard us when in reality you just didn't understand. Occasionally, I'll also see a pilot who doesn't understand an instruction just disconnect. Minus an insanely busy event -- and really, even then -- we want to work with and help you as best we can. It's okay to say you don't understand: actually, it's better to do that than to just disconnect and pop up again 100 miles later on top of someone. Also better to do that than guess wrong and end up descending when we wanted you to stay level for traffic. As Dace says, most of us are happy to help clarify via PM. But let us know first. I'd suggest something like: "Center, N12345 is unable (instruction)" or "N12345 is unfamiliar with the instruction". Or just say "unable, N12345". You might also say why: "I'm not familiar with how to fly STARs/arrivals". Typically that would prompt us to give you a simpler instruction like headings and altitudes. Once you're complying with the new instruction and everyone is on the same page, you could then considering sending a private message asking for clarification. Or, if it's not busy, just say "Center, N12345, do you have time for a question?" and ask via voice.
  3. From the Boston Virtual ARTCC perspective, I wish we could have found a way to remain aligned with the PTD's vision but the reality is that what our ATO was designed to do really doesn't involve in-airplane instruction. As Ethan says, we have a great offering and it will continue to remain freely available to the community once our status as an ATO is terminated. However, adding components to it that involve checking a pilot's "hands and feet" skill in the simulator just doesn't make sense. The existing PRP we have works so effectively because we use the existing resource of air traffic controllers -- who already receive specialized training -- as the "instructors". In today's world, the controllers monitor the progress of each ratings flight and then issue certifications on that basis. If the pilot doesn't know how to fly the correct airspeed...well, we'll probably catch that if they suddenly gain/lose altitude or even groundspeed. We're clear that our ATO won't teach you how to fly: it will teach you how to navigate a traffic pattern, fly VFR routes, read instrument charts, and correctly navigate approaches. So if you fly 10 knots slow we might miss it. But if you fly 10 knots slow while turning the wrong way and entering the unprotected side of the hold, we'll know about that, and let you know about it when we give you the chance to try it again. To me, learning instrument procedures and demonstrating navigation is the best use of a simulator. And it is built to give pilots the very skills they'll need to fly effectively within the VATSIM ATC system. Trying to fit that into the box of the new ATO standards didn't make sense. We're glad Ethan has demonstrated strong leadership and is moving the PTD in a direction he and the network feel is the right one. Although we don't fit it, we're excited for the creation of the P0 rating, the entrance exam, and the extent to which the new standards will (hopefully) raise the bar for pilots on the network. We know there are plenty of other ATOs that will adapt to offer the new ratings and hope pilots continue to avail themselves of these incredibly beneficial, free resources in the future.
  4. Continuing the theme of Authorized Training Organizations, I would absolutely recommend VATSTAR (as Mats suggests) for in-person instruction. You'll be paired up with one of their instructors and be walked through the procedures. There are a number of other ATOs available: https://ptd.vatsim.net/atos. If you prefer a self-study course that builds up to the question you're asking (about STARs), you might also consider www.bvartcc.com/prp.
  5. I think there's a lot of value in both concepts. We're proud to list VATSTAR as one of our partner organizations and regularly staff up in support of their ratings/certification flights. As I understand it, the VATSTAR program is more of a one-on-one, in-person style training program that allows you to work and train actively with an instructor. Our Pilot Ratings Program is self-study: you read the materials and then (when ATC is online) complete the flight. ATC monitors your flight against the Test Standards that are prescribed for each module and, assuming you meet them all, issues you a rating. If you don't, you'll be given feedback on what happened and usually offered the chance to try again right away. I don't view the programs as mutually exclusive and, assuming you have the time, think you would benefit from both. The nice thing about BVA's PRP is that no commitment is required (other than signing up for a free membership at www.bvartcc.com). If you try one or two flights and then stop, no worries. And if you like them, more power to you. You can do them at your own pace and there's no expiration.
  6. Brian, I know you're looking for west coast flying but... https://forum.bvartcc.com/bvaportal/communities/prp/ That program is a pilot-specific training program that offers many of the points you've asked for, structured in a series of flights that starts at VFR closed traffic ("pattern") and builds up to complex IFR procedures like holds and diversions. It also gives a nice tour of the New England area. The first 20 flights in particular are entirely focused on GA flying and encourage the use of old-school navigation using VORs and NDBs, although you're also welcome to use GPS and modern-day technology too. I believe ZLA used to have something similar although I'm not sure it exists anymore.
  7. For those who are flying the event, please take note of the updated reminders in the original event post, specifically the points that: This is NOT a crossfire To help reduce airborne holding, the idea is for pilots to fly into CYYZ, KBOS, and KBDL from other places rather than flying between the airports Please consider Bradley/Hartford (BDL) as an arrival option; we have rostered 6 controllers at BDL who would love to talk to you! During the event, we will be testing some traffic management techniques we haven't used in the past, such as limiting departures from nearby airports, including Toronto. This means that if you start a flight of our New York, Washington, Toronto, or some other nearby airports, you might be asked to wait for a few minutes on the ground before being cleared for takeoff. This is all to help smooth the traffic flow and to try to give you an optimal arrival experience once you reach our airspace.
  8. Thanks Javier! I actually found a solution, but I hope yours might help someone else. In my case, the fix sounds quite similar to yours. I had to ensure the "Make this my main display" option in "Display Settings" must be to a monitor that's plugged into the graphics card, not the onboard/motherboard output. I found out it doesn't matter which screen VRC is on or which monitors are plugged in. And the issue persists even if I only use one display plugged into the onboard graphics. As long as the "main display" is a graphics card display and not onboard video, it works. (Obviously, it also works fine if I only use the graphics card monitors.)
  9. Since re-locating my computer a few weeks ago, I've been having an odd issue with VRC I haven't been able to figure out. I know it's not a VRC coding issue because the program has been around forever and worked just fine on my computer previously. My attempted setup is one VRC window on the left monitor and then a second, smaller radar window on the right monitor. When I just have the one window, everything is normal. However, when I open up a second window -- and put it anywhere -- that window (and only that window) becomes super lagy. By lagy, I mean that if you try to zoom in, re-size the window, or do anything on that window, the program freezes for 5 seconds before doing anything. The original window still zooms and pans fine. I've tried updating graphics drivers, compatibility settings for previous versions of Windows, run as administrator, etc. I've also tried re-creating the session profile from scratch and deleting VRC.ini, but the same results each time. I run vERAM and vATIS, as well as several other non-VATSIM programs, in multiple monitor mode without issue. Any ideas?
  10. You seem to be the only one having an issue like this...or, at least, it's the first I've heard of it. Everyone I talk to on frequency is crystal clear. Hopefully we can figure out what's not working and fix it. Is the issue that ATC is hearing you garbled, you're hearing them garbled, or both? Can you give us an idea of your internet capability and speed?
  11. I can't speak to the technical side of the equation, and don't know whether pilot clients have been effective at determining frame rates. You're right that VATSIM needs to get the technical side of this change right. For those pilot clients that aren't getting it right, I hope (as is the case with xPilot) the technical corrections can be made quickly. That being said, in my view, the concept is bang on. Greg, if you've not experienced the "slowness" issue, I'm surprised but happy for you. It's wreaked havoc on several of our events and can be problematic during a regular evening too. It's become so commonplace that we used to .wallop for it...until we were told by SUPs, during busy events, that we were required to accommodate, no matter what. A few weeks ago, I had to hold 5 airplanes while an X-Plane pilot affected by this issue flew an approach to KBOS. I put the first regular speed aircraft about 25 miles in trail of the X-Plane pilot and by the time the X-Plane pilot landed, the guy behind him was on short final. At a place like KMSP or KORD where there are runways for days...sure, put him on the departure runway or out of the way. At KBOS, we only have 1 arrival runway in almost all configurations. If we are forced to accommodate, everyone will be affected. We're not talking about trying to sequence a jet with a slow-moving prop. We're talking about sequencing a jet behind a helicopter. In a hover. I've watched people fly JFK to BOS (maybe an hour-long flight, at most) over the course of more than 3 hours. Literally, they've been flying --in a jet -- from the time I sign in to the time I log off, and they still haven't made it the roughly 150 miles to their destination. These users should have the opportunity to realize there is an issue with their simulator's performance. Not only has VATSIM done that, it's also presented a number of solutions to fix an issue that should be very strongly negatively affecting their own sim experience, nevermind that of other people. In my view, it's refreshing to see the network embracing change. I'd like to think this decision comes from feedback VATSIM has gotten through its survey and other comments from the membership. Hopefully anyone who is negatively impacted by it takes the opportunity to improve their sim (using the provided recommendations), and/or provides feedback to the client developers where there are issues with frame rate detection. Until then, it's nice to know that we can count on a B737 to outrun a C172. Before this change, that wasn't always the case.
  12. This is one of the best VATSIM feature changes I've seen so far. The issue X-Plane pilots with low frames cause ATC, especially during busy events, really can't be overstated. In the past, we have had to hold 20+ airplanes because of one pilot using X-Plane who was moving at 1/8th of the speed of everyone else. There are a number of suggestions for how you can increase your frames or lower settings. If you're an X-Plane pilot affected by the issue, it should be easy enough to follow the recommendations VATSIM has provided so you can fly within the ATC system without negatively impacting other pilots.
  13. I'm not familiar with EuroScope...is there a way for this controller to de-select 121.90 so he isn't transmitting on that frequency? In other words, can you tell me what we need to tell Montreal to do or not do? 121.90 is used as a ground frequency across multiple nearby ARTCCs; this issue affected at least two of ZBW's controllers as well as JFK.
  14. Are you running vPilot as an administrator? When you press your push-to-talk button, do you see the "TX" light illuminate?
  15. Nice! Good hearing you tonight. Thanks for flying, as always.
  • Create New...