Jump to content

Tobias Dammers

Members
  • Content Count

    214
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Tobias Dammers

  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.
  16. No. "D1.5" means "1.5 DME", and defines the point in the MAY holding where you have to turn left in order to leave the holding; it has absolutely nothing to do with the TIMBA holding. The TIMBA holding is a standard right-hand holding pattern, which means the straight legs are standard 1-minute legs.
  17. Ground is above delivery, so that's who you would contact. Top-down goes DEL -> GND -> TWR -> APP/DEP -> CTR. (There are sometimes additional positions in between, and above, but you don't normally have to worry about those). GND is above DEL, so the ground controller will also cover DEL when no DEL controller is online. It may look like a lot, but that's exactly how it works - when GND is the highest staffed position at an airport, then the CTR controller covering the area will provide TWR and APP/DEP for that airport. And in fact, if no position at the airport is staffed
  18. Yes, and we are talking about "smaller aircraft that don't require push-back" here, so that seems appropriate.
  19. Took a quick look at the parking / docking chart, but there doesn't seem to be any stand from which you could do a taxi-out, they're all nose-in, except for the GA/Business aprons, which don't have any precisely designated parking areas. The airport briefing says this on the matter of taxi-out / power-back: (Source: https://www.aurora.nats.co.uk/htmlAIP/Publications/2021-01-28-AIRAC/html/eAIP/EG-AD-2.EGCC-en-GB.html#AD-2.EGCC) I don't know how it's normally done at EGCC, but I would expect that if you're on a regular stand, you would normally be cleared for pushback, unless y
  20. This sounds like sloppy ground controlling - if you don't request a specific parking, they should assign you a suitable one. Some controllers will go so far as to pick one that the real-world equivalent of you flight would use, matching on airline (giving you a gate that "your" airline would also use IRL) and departure airport (e.g., in Europe, Schengen-area flights will often use different terminals or concourses than non-Schengen flights). At the very least, though, they should give you a gate or apron that fits the aircraft type and type of traffic (cargo / commercial pax / private). H
  21. Meanwhile, the Dutch seem to have given up... making foreign pilots say "Schiphol" and "Spijkerboor" would just be too cruel, so it's just "Sherra Pappa Leema" and "Sherra Pappa Yankee" 😆
  22. Someone correct me on this, but I believe you can't.
  23. There other ways, but they're not universally supported. Not every pilot has a working Hoppie client. Everyone can read text messages though.
  24. My $0.02 on the matter: How about starting on the "education" end of things before breaking out the big guns ("disciplinary action" or whatever)? No need to force anything onto anyone if you can make them do it voluntarily. Start with loudly and clearly promoting voice as the preferred mode of communication; present voice as the default mode to new pilots, throw out a bunch of official statements about the state of affairs, call it a policy change if you like - the key goal is to silence the lore and rumors that are making rounds. Lots of pilots out there believe that voice unicom is frow
  25. Have you tried the Swift discord? The devs are quite active there, and pretty helpful. The setup is intimidating, and a usability train wreck, but in the end it's not rocket science, and once you're past that hurdle, the program works just fine.
×
×
  • Create New...