Jump to content

Oliver Gruetzmann

Members
  • Content Count

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Oliver Gruetzmann last won the day on August 20

Oliver Gruetzmann had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

1 Follower

About Oliver Gruetzmann

  • Birthday 10/30/1982

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. It's simply facts. Your experience with high traffic (on Varsim, don't know about your profession) is a long time ago, if there was any (didn't browse all of your stats). Your coverage the last two years was APP and below only. True or false? If true, why would you say that you know what impact this regulation has on a busy CTR sector (once again: On Vatsim)? That's like I would tell people stuff about the Gander domestic airspace while I've been there only once, several years ago, during CTP. Not sure what makes you think this will lead to personal attacks - not my intention and lea
  2. I just checked your stats. Not even a single session with high traffic within the last 2 years on Vatsim. Sorry to say, but I don't think you have an understanding of what this regulation means once it gets busy. And: Controlling purely APP positions will make this problem much less likely to occur.
  3. No, it is not perfect. I'm controlling CTR sectors that recently saw 60+ movements per hour, which is a number that RL controllers see for a much smaller part of the airspace, with aircraft staying in there for much less time and working as a team of two in an airspace that is not GND-UNL (not controlling top down all the airports in that airspace). I've constantly had 20-25 aircraft (more than RL controllers have in those sectors in RL) in a sector of 210 by 150 NM, half of them being in a subsector of 60 by 70 NM. Many of those aircraft are vertical movements, climbing or descending thr
  4. I was following this page. Strange thing is, that it starts working after an ident. Also found that finally the SB3 offsets are not listed in FSUIPC anymore. I'd love to find out where this needs to be written to without FSUIPC, but currently I'm clueless and google seems to be unwilling to point me anywhere useful.
  5. Need to correct myself, vPilot also shows this behaviour (think I had both, vPilot and Swift open, maybe this made it work from the start). I'll try a workaround and take this over to the FSUIPC forums.
  6. The RXP doesn't set these on its own. Instead it offers variables that other addons can read. To make this work, I used FSUIPC's Lua interface to write to those offsets. For vPilot this works without any workaround.
  7. Hi, I recently bought the Accusim Beech Bonanza and for more flexibility the RXP GTN750, which includes transponder controls. RXP has the corresponding Lvars in their manual, so I wrote a small LUA script to switch the old SB-offsets to control the swift transponder from the cockpit by setting the SB offsets. Now here's the problem: While the offset is being switched just fine, swift only recognizes those changes of the offset after I either send a squawk Ident via the RXP transponder, or switch the state in the swift client once. Before I do one of those, I can switch the rxp t
  8. Z and Y flight plans as well? 🙂
  9. Which is a really weird format for something, that is a well defined message (but I know where it comes from :))
  10. Is it allowed NOT to drink while controlling or conducting a flight on Vatsim? 😅
  11. Should do. We use this quite often. In case APP needs a short break: APP selects the TWR frequency and activates XC for all frequencies.
  12. Workaround: Let the "higher" colleague XC your frequency 🙂
  13. Yep, obviously missed XSB, but for this reason we only switched over a small part (and reverted to the old frequencies already). The only thing we keep is the ATIS frequencies to be compatible to vATIS, which doesn't allow for .x20 or .x70, but the impact of this should be very limited (if there's any at all).
  14. Hi, we did some testing before we went forward and obviously missed XSquawkbox. Trying to use real frequencies (like 118.825, 123.225) we found out that XSB is the only client doing some weird stuff (converting everything to xx0). The other clients most likely transmit/receive on both, buggy Vatsim and real frequencies, only XSB prevents communication. Any chance to get this changed?
  15. @Ernesto Alvarez 818262 after some testing: It's not the legacy clients (which you will rarely encounter these days). It's one of the current ones: XSquawkbox is doing some weird magic with frequencies and text. The other current clients do work. But at least this corresponds with the name - The old Squawkbox was the reason we couldn't use 136.xxx frequencies for all these years. Great there's squawkbox... This is one of the very few points that make me jealous of the other networt - they use the 8,33 kHz channels already (not sure how they deal with aircraft that do not support it),
×
×
  • Create New...