Jump to content

Jason Cochran

Members
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Jason Cochran last won the day on February 6

Jason Cochran had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

14 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. From my perspective, I'd like to minimize the number of radar clients that we must support. Each one comes with a time investment. I see no way to eliminate either vSTARS or vERAM due to their distinct use cases, and I'm not crazy about the idea of adopting "yet another client." I'm also not thrilled with the non-US centric aspect of the other clients. We really like using your software, Ross.... so, getting a few more TDM capabilities in vSTARS seems to be the way I'd vote, also. I have no strong opinion on the realism spectrum debate; I understand why some desire it and why some don't c
  2. Daniel, This is awesome. I wasn't aware of this impending change (somehow I missed the change notice), so this could be a lifesaver. I'm not a hardcore Java guy, so would you be open to help get this running on a server in the cloud some place (for example, Amazon Lambda or Heroku) and making it available through an API? EDIT: To be clear, I knew this was going to happen at some point, but per the forum Daniel referenced earlier, I thought it was years down the road. Jason
  3. The proposal is to ask VATSIM to adopt a policy of actively discouraging it. So, if adopted it would be VATSIM's position, rather than "a small group that use the network and feel inconvenienced by its use." However, I do think you underestimate the number of people who, if asked, would support such a policy. I'm not sure why you think it's a tiny group.
  4. I'm not sure if you're genuinely asking or being snarky (sorry it's a little hard to tell with just words sometimes), but in the event your question is genuine... my opinion (based on some responses here and elsewhere) that there is enough interest to warrant further investigation. There have been a lot of ideas and opinions throw into this thread, some which confuse the issue or mischaracterize the original proposal. But I'd say about half are interested in some kind of modification of the existing rule, and it would be worth a study.
  5. That’s what I figured. But, the point of this thread was to try to stir interest in changing that.
  6. I previously mentioned that my idea is to simply force someone to attest. I’m sure nobody wants to review paperwork from a doctor. I’m not suggesting that. So, if you force people to attest, they will have to blatantly lie to use text without qualification. That alone, in my estimation, would reduce the numbers significantly. I wouldn’t lie about such a thing. Edit: Please ignore this box below... I can’t delete it using my phone’s browser. Ugh.
  7. There’s a bit of irony that I’ve missed so far that just struck me. Not necessarily good or bad, just ironic. It seems from the sentiment I’ve read so far that VATSIM is unwilling to say, “If your microphone broke or isn’t usable to produce good quality sound, you must log off until you fix it.” Instead, keeping text as a backup for whatever trouble might befall a pilot. Yet there are other services where you would not be allowed to log on without a mic, or fly with an unintelligible audio quality. Which of those networks would we expect to be commercial? My first instinct tells
  8. I concur with Ross’ interpretation and thoughts on this aspect.
  9. I think your reply speaks to a different question than the one being debated here, so I just want to be careful to note the original proposal was not to eliminate /t for the disabled. In fact, it would leave /t in place for those who need it, but make /r (at minimum, /v preferred) required for everyone else.
  10. I would be interested to see if this can make an impact and we should start with this. Of course, the CoC already states that voice is the preferred method. Although, I’m not sure if anybody truly reads the CoC until they’ve violated it.
  11. I think this situation could be resolved by simply using /r?
  12. I think it's a fair request to ask that the BOG (or whomever) conduct a formal survey of the user population as a whole to take a pulse on this issue.
  13. Interesting question. I didn't spend much time thinking about enforcement, but I suppose it would have to evolve over time. I think it could start fairly low-tech. Visibility ranges are a good example of that... nothing prevents me from signing on to an TWR position with a 150 nm visibility range, but I always seem to get a visit from a supervisor within about three minutes. So, maybe a report that triggers an alert when a non-flagged account sends a text message on a radio frequency? I'm not too familiar with the VATSIM on the backend, but perhaps the end game could be that the FSD
  14. I must respectfully disagree. I think this kind of user education campaign would be hard fought and produce too little in the way of measurable results toward the desired outcome. I certainly don't have time to have this kind of conversation while controlling. It may be an unpopular opinion (but I suspect it's not an unpopular opinion if the entirety of VATSIM's user base was polled based on my conversation with other pilots and controllers), but yes, frankly I do believe pilots should be forced to use /r (not /v) unless there is a demonstrable reason they cannot. For me, the impact
×
×
  • Create New...