Jump to content

Tobias Dammers

Members
  • Content Count

    230
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Tobias Dammers

  1. Sometimes VATSIM ATC will ask you whether you have a preferred gate. And if they assign you something you don't like, you can always request a different one.
  2. Have you read the bit where OP says that Wikipedia has it wrong? They didn't provide any sources, but neither did you.
  3. Yes, I was going to elaborate on that part, but decided to edit. You brief the alternative approach, but you can brush over the parts that are the same, and highlight only the differences (which is also why I said you should include in your briefing the steps needed to set up the aircraft for the other approach).
  4. Might want to add: when briefing the alternate approach, include in your briefing what steps you must perform to set the aircraft up for the different approach.
  5. "Visual" does not mean "VFR". The status of your flight is still IFR, throughout - just because you're IFR doesn't mean you cannot fly procedures with visual segments in them.
  6. Note btw. that this is a US thing; most European airport do not have radar vector SIDs. If you can't or don't want to fly an RNAV or conventional SID, you would just request a vectored departure, and receive detailed departure instructions, or, in some cases, you would depart visually, report a given altitude, and receive instructions from there. (The latter is usually the case where there is no radar coverage around the airport, like at EKVG or BIIS).
  7. Just file your flightplan as normally, but don't include and SID and STAR, and write "NO SID/STAR" in your REMARKS section. If all goes well, ATC will give you explicit departure instructions, and for the arrival, you'll probably get vectors. Heads up, though: for KDEN, vectored departures will most likely be given by assigning the "DENVER TWO" departure (found here: https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/2105/pdf/09077DENVER.PDF) - but that's basically just "vectors", with a couple additional instructions, and you don't need an FMC to fly that one.
  8. It depends. In principle, yes, you can always ask for vectors (not "vectors to the STAR" though - just request "vectors"). However, especially during busy events, this puts an extra burden on the controller, so be aware of that - they can't deny you service (that would be against VATSIM policy), but they may be forced to delay you in order to fit you into the flow in a manageable way. Also expect questions as to why. Now, the most likely reason why the FMC won't give you the procedures ATC told you to fly would be that your FMC data is outdated. VATSIM generally follows real-world pr
  9. Technology wise, yes, sure, there's text chat built into the VATSIM network protocol and all clients. Voice messages are not automatically converted into text though, and they aren't logged either, so it wouldn't be a "copy", it would be the ATC manually repeating their instruction in text. Needless to say, this is not something that's normally done, but in some situations, using text chat is a reasonable way out when voice communication fails. Some controllers will also use text chat in lieu of CPDLC/ACARS, particularly for PDC (pre-departure clearance). In principle, you can also use text fo
  10. ...which would be a violation of COC B8, so.
  11. IRL, "pilot deviation" means that a pilot has deviated from mandatory procedures, or otherwise violated the rules, and there will be some aftermath to this - paperwork, investigation, questioning, and possibly disciplinary action, depending on the findings. We don't do any of that aftermath on VATSIM, so if an ATCO says "pilot deviation", then that's just a way of saying that you did something wrong that would have serious consequences IRL, like turning the wrong way, landing on the wrong runway, busting your altitude clearance, flying VFR into controlled airspace without clearance, flyin
  12. Also note that at many European airports, the GA apron is uncontrolled, which means that you can start your engine, pushback, and taxi on the apron, at your own discretion (but you are also responsible for making sure you're not causing any problems by doing so). So you'd start your engines as needed, call Delivery for your IFR clearance, and then just pushback and taxi as needed, and call up Ground (or Tower, as the case may be) when you reach the limit of the uncontrolled apron (usually a designated apron exit point).
  13. It's not a big deal anyway; "flying hours" are purely decorative, they don't give you any advantages or anything on vatsim. ATC won't even look at your flying hours.
  14. Indeed - being 3 degrees high at 3000 means you'd be on a 6° angle from the runway, which means that you're at a point where you should be down to 1496 ft on the correct glideslope. At this point, you're 4.7 miles out, which means you have passed the outer marker a good while ago, and that alone should have been a red flag. If the visibility isn't lousy, you should also have the field in sight by now, and it should look weird, because you're looking at it from way too high.
  15. Capturing from above is somewhat problematic for another reason. If you capture from below, then you will be in level flight, or in a stable shallow descent; capturing the glideslope, then, will have you nose down, which will temporarily increase your airspeed, and the autothrottle then reacts by gently retarding to bring you back to your selected approach speed. By contrast, if you capture from above, you will also be in a stable descent, but at a fairly steep angle, so probably at a low power setting (if not idle), and when you capture the glideslope, the autopilot will pull up. Your ai
  16. There are several working solutions to this problem already, all reasonably close to what you might want. TeamSpeak seems popular; Discord would work; there's Mumble, if you want something open source. I think the problem is a social one more than a technical one - getting everyone to agree on a single communication channel for this stuff. I don't think writing yet another VoIP-ish solution for this would help.
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. FWIW, even if you make it as easy as EHAM, people STILL use all the wrong runways.
×
×
  • Create New...