Jump to content

Tobias Dammers

Members
  • Content Count

    214
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Tobias Dammers last won the day on April 8

Tobias Dammers had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

59 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The physics simulation algorithm is not actually all that relevant. There is no reason why you couldn't perform two or three updates of that Blade Element algorithm for each rendered frame - even a complex simulation like this is usually limited on rendering, not physics, which means that frame skipping would be a perfectly viable way of sacrificing perceived performance (number of frames shown per second) for correctness (accuracy and stability of physics simulation). Yes, XP11's physics simulation relies on the time step delta to be small enough, but the same also applies to literally e
  2. This comes up every now and then, and AFAICT, the bottom line is always that the benefit (enforcing a certain quality standard among pilots) is not worth the cost (losing as large portion of the pilot population, many of them for good). It's different for controllers: right now, pilots outnumber controllers roughly 10:1, and that's a decent ratio. Imagine what happens when that ratio shifts to something like 2:1, or even 1:1. It gets silly fast, and no amount of pilot competence can make up for that. If you only ever get to control 1 or 2 aircraft at once, then there's not much to it anym
  3. Not to mention that pilot ratings, unlike controller ratings, are purely decorative; they don't "unlock" anything on VATSIM, except training courses for higher ratings. Anything you can do as a pilot, outside of the training system, can be done with a P0 rating, and I believe there are no plans of changing this either.
  4. The problem isn't FPS itself, but the fact that XP11 (unlike all the other sims) will slow down simulation rate when FPS drops below 20. VATSIM doesn't really care if you're seeing a slideshow on your end; what we do care about is that when you report 240 knots, you will cover roughly 4 miles per minute - but XP11 running at 10 fps will slow down sim time by 50%, so your airspeed indicator will still show 240 knots, while you're really moving at 120 knots, 2 miles per minute. Now, that hardware isn't exactly top notch; but it being a laptop, just buying, say, a used GTX1050Ti is not
  5. My recommendations would be: Aim to do full flights. Once you're in the air and TWR has handed you off, the worst is behind you, might as well keep flying. Disconnecting is 100% fine at any point, people do it for all sorts of reasons, and controllers will prefer that over getting in over your head and messing things up for everyone. Reconnecting is also allowed, but it's considered good etiquette to try and minimize the disruption. I'd reconnect well before my top-of-descent, to give ATC a fighting chance of working me in gracefully. A useful trick when reconnecting is
  6. I think at this point it's a good idea to clarify the difference between FREQUENCIES and CHANNELS, and why 8.33 spacing makes it all such a terrible mess. In the old 25 kHz days, things were simple. You had channels spaced 25 kHz apart, and you would refer to them by their exact frequency. 118.00, 118.025, 118.050, 118.075. Easy peasy. But with the frequency space getting ever more crowded, and the precision of radio equipment improving, a new standard was devised that packs more channels into the same frequency space: "8.33 kHz channel spacing". The idea is simple: just put 3 times
  7. I don't have any inside information for you, but in general, I don't think adding fields to a JSON data structure would require upgrading a version number - after all, your code should still work unchanged, and just ignore those extra fields. That's how JSON-consuming code is usually written. It might not be a great idea to *depend* on those fields until the documentation explicitly mentions them, but you can surely *ignore* them.
  8. VATSIM's infrastructure doesn't currently support Y (begin IFR, switch to VFR) or Z (the other way around) flight plans. To fly a Y flight plan, file as IFR, and put "VFR" in your route at the point where you intend to transition.
  9. FWIW, even if you make it as easy as EHAM, people STILL use all the wrong runways.
  10. Plus IRL it's safe to assume that pilots are competent enough to judge whether the tailwind is within limits, and if so, perform a perfectly safe tailwind landing. Whereas on VATSIM, ...
  11. It all hinges on what you were cleared for. As a general rule, fly the clearance, not the plan. If your IFR clearance says something like "ABC123, you are cleared to destination KABC via the DOTSS2 departure, then as filed, initial climb 5000 feet, expect flight level 240 after 10 minutes, squawk 1234", then they want you to fly the SID. If however it says something like "ABC123, you are cleared to destination KABC, after departure maintain runway heading, climb 5000 feet, expect flight level 240 after 10 minutes, squawk 1234", then you are not cleared to fly the departure as published, b
  12. These two airports have had large-scale overhauls of their arrival procedures in recent AIRACs. The procedures that used to be called "transitions" are now published as "GPS/RNAV ARRIVAL CHART / TRANSITION TO FINAL APPROACH (OVERLAY TO STANDARD RADAR VECTORING PATTERN)", like this one: https://aip.dfs.de/basicIFR/scripts/getPage.php?part=AD&id=40749FD23E58E92F12F6F945F20D7399&title=AD 2 EDDM 3-1-1 I don't know why they're not on vatsim-germany, but DFS publishes them, and you should be able to find your way from https://aip.dfs.de/basicIFR/ to find whichever charts you need.
  13. You can request a specific approach, but this isn't mandatory, and if you're flying a relatively standard airliner, ATC will give you the most appropriate approach they can. As an example, when I fly the Embraer Lineage 1000 (a bizjet conversion of the E190), I generally want to park near the GAT, and at some airports, this means I would benefit from landing on a different runway than the airliners - e.g., at EHAM, I generally prefer runway 04/22, because I can taxi right off onto the GA apron, and skip the lengthy taxi. So when I fly into EHAM, I'll usually request that runway proactivel
  14. Oh boy... yes, now that I think about it, that does make sense, after all an aircraft is a big metal tube... Though technically the signal doesn't get interrupted, "only" disturbed, so the NAV equipment will still pick up *something*, it will just be a bit wrong.
  15. Aircraft getting in the way don't interrupt an ILS signal IRL either - otherwise, having multiple aircraft on the same ILS approach at the same time would not be possible.
×
×
  • Create New...