Jump to content

Evan Reiter

Members
  • Content Count

    232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Evan Reiter last won the day on January 9

Evan Reiter had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

48 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. @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.
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. @Tim Roden and @Jeremy Werderman, hope this might help: It (sort of) seems like it could be the issue you're describing.
  9. 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:
  10. 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
  11. @Stephen Olwell, where in the world do you tend to fly?
  12. Thanks for the response Matt. I will say that I did receive the draft policy back on October 15 and provided the same feedback as on this thread. I didn't hear whether it went anywhere, which is why I suggested it here again. Ultimately, it's great to see the network looking for more input. I guess my comment is that publishing the policy as you did, but just with an effective date about 2 weeks after it's published publicly, might have been helpful. Your points around top-down ATC are well taken too. I can see the logic in the way you've done it. There is definitely value in being i
  13. I too am happy we have a policy now. I also agree that a few days' notice for implementation would have been helpful. Like you, ZBW had several questions come up on a Sunday evening. Fortunately, it not being 1am for us, we were able to put out a statement quickly. However, all it says is that we haven't had the chance to review the policy yet and that no changes will happen until we have. Some of our pilot members were asking what this means and they got "I don't know, we got the same info you did, at the same time you did", which makes us look a little under-coordinated. That said, giv
  14. Hi Dustin - not sure (and can't speak to) what the future of AFV will allow, but I've worked around this by using a program called VoiceMeeter. You set the audio output from AFV to VoiceMeeter and then you can choose (in real time) which output device you want. I'm not sure if the same is possible with input devices. https://vb-audio.com/Voicemeeter/index.htm More detailed instructions in this document, starting on Page 6: https://atchub.bvartcc.com/atcfiles/BVA_AdditionalSoftwareGuide.pdf.
×
×
  • Create New...