CPDLC, ACARS

[John Golin]

Hoppie;

 

FYI the link on your site is to Alpha 3 while the link in ht eforum here is Alpha 4.

 

Cheers

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers 8114]

The link on your site is to Alpha 3 while the link in ht eforum here is Alpha 4.

Thanks for the heads-up. I think you may have misread the 1.4 version number for alpha 4. There is no alpha 4 yet.

 

http://www.hoppie.nl/acars/prg/atc/acarsatc-1.4-alpha-3-install.exe

 

On my web site there is no link to the alphas, but the 1.4 alpha 3 will soon get out of alpha and enter the eternal beta.

 

 

Jeroen

[John Golin]

Ahh righto...

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers 8114]

Version 1.4 of the CPDLC program for ATC is now on my web site.

 

http://www.hoppie.nl/acars/prg/atc/

 

The changes are for the moment mostly in window management, so that you can blend in the program better with any scope. I am always open to suggestions for improvement.

 

 

 

Jeroen

[John Golin]

That's good hoppie - I like the 'no background' and transparancy options!

[Sam Schiphorst 1138912]

As I am running X-Plane on my iMac, right now I run it without any connection to the sim on my secondary Windows Laptop. Any chance to integrate X-Plane connection some day? I am no expert for it, but as far as I understand, writing data from X-Plane to another application should be quite easy...

I am currently under time constraints but yes indeed, it should be a lot easier to interface X-Plane than MSFS. Anybody who can dump out position info and a few other items (see the pos report page for them) can inject them into the Broker with a plaintext TCP stream.

 

This one stays on my radar.

 

 

Jeroen

 

Does that mean when or if this is produced for x-plane that it would be compatible since the majority of X-Plane user use mac?

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers 8114]

Nearly all of my software is in principle platform-independent although some fine tunings have been made for windows only due to the exclusive user base. If the X-plane interface gets done (no promises, I don't have X-plane, I don't have a Mac, I don't have a lot of time, etc.) then most likely the ACARS stuff will also run on a Mac.

 

 

Jeroen

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers 8114]

... but that'll never happen as long as there is a requirement to e-mail the author to request a login. If a registration is to be required it should at least be an automatic thing on the website that can be done in the space of a couple of minutes.

I am glad to announce that in the mean time the number of active users has risen to well over 250. That's more than double.

 

Jeroen

[Jonas Eberle]

I have it in my controller info since approx. 15 online hours. It is a pity only 3 pilots used it since then. I think it is not the lack of interest, but the difficulty of finding a CPDLC controller.

 

Is there a possibility to find online CPDLC-equipped ATC stations? I guess that is what the inclined pilot would need now. 2nd important would be to integrate it with some plane's FMC to have a better user experience.

 

PS: I will not stop using it The interface is so cool and does not eat any space on the screen when minimized so it is really no big effort to just keep it running.

And as a pilot I was able to use it on my first North Atlantic crossing (the controller advertized it in his controller info just as I do).

[Alexander Cohrs]

I am also using it as a controller and as a pilot. Unfortunately, so far I had no connections with it - neither as a pilot nor as a controller.

 

Personally, I am quite happy with the MCDU pilot interface. It runs on my 100 Euro used bought laptop and works great. But I fully agree with Jonas about the difficulty finding CLPDC controllers. I know it's on the network part of your homepage, but it's definitely difficult to find.

 

Maybe this can somehow be integreated in traffic viewer tools like Qutescoop or DLMN?

 

Kind regards

 

Alex

[Kirk Christie]

.

Is there a possibility to find online CPDLC-equipped ATC stations?

 

Only way to do that is for Controllers to advertise it in their Controller info

 

The only way for pilots to find said Controllers, is to check the Controllers

[Jonas Eberle]

Thanks for the hint with the network page: http://www.hoppie.nl/acars/system/log.html

 

Did not know that! This helps for pilots wanting to use it. I was thinking of an announcement thread, but that is what I was looking for.

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

I just used Hoppie's ACARS for the first time out of JFK, it worked awesome.

 

Is there any chance of the MCDU interface being changed into a more generic looking ACARS screen? This would add a little bit of realism.

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers 8114]

Hi Darrol,

 

There's not such a thing as a generic ACARS screen. ACARS is extremely company-specific, and of course there are just a few different MCDUs out there, no generic equipment either.

 

Which kind of realism are you after? Less looking like a real aircraft?

 

It's technically possible to change the photo backdrop of the MCDU by simple file exchange and config update in flat text. You may want to experiment with this, details are here:

http://www.hoppie.nl/mcdu/extending.html

 

 

Jeroen

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

Thanks, I was just thinking of a version of it so it looked like something other than an MCDU, and more like another component that could theoretically be installed in the cockpit. That way, if I want to us it in an Airbus, the glaring unrealism isn't there. Just would add a little bit of coolness to it.

 

I'll give that link a try and see if I can make something.

 

By the way, if this gets big is there any possibility of it being open-sourced?

[Kyle Gallagher 1066073]

Darrol,

 

I believe the source code is on his website somewhere.

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

I just took another look, it's GPL!!!

[Daniel Macfarlane 1033470]

Thanks, I was just thinking of a version of it so it looked like something other than an MCDU, and more like another component that could theoretically be installed in the cockpit. That way, if I want to us it in an Airbus, the glaring unrealism isn't there. Just would add a little bit of coolness to it.

 

I'll give that link a try and see if I can make something.

 

By the way, if this gets big is there any possibility of it being open-sourced?

 

 

ACARs and Datalink are usually always through the MCDU.

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

Yup, I know. But given that we can't do that, a standalone device would be more realistic even if it isn't commonly used in real life.

[Erik Wachters]

yes, thats why it should be nice to have a FS gauge like FSAcars to integrate in any panel:

 

http://www.satavirtual.org/fsacars/

 

or FS Flight Keeper:

 

http://www.flightkeeper.net/Gallery.html

 

But I posted it on the panel building forum at Avsim and a builder told me that it is almost unpossible to make for some reason. I'm not a programmer so I can't tell.

 

Erik

[Peter Lund]

Hi Jeroen,

 

I am currently trying the acars for the first time and sent a message to LPPO, but I received the reply in Topcat. Shouldn´t the reply come in the MCDU ?.

 

Best regards

 

Peter Lund

[Erik Wachters]

Hi,

 

Don't use the same callsign in Topcat and the MCDU. Try to enter your flightnumber in the MCDU and your company code in Topcat. ex: UAL999 (MCDU) UAL (topcat).

 

Erik

[Daniel Macfarlane 1033470]

Yup, I know. But given that we can't do that, a standalone device would be more realistic even if it isn't commonly used in real life.

 

If it isn't used in real life, what would make it more realistic? Leaving it by itself or adding some weird, non - realistic design that you would never see in a plane?

[Peter Lund]

Hi,

 

Don't use the same callsign in Topcat and the MCDU. Try to enter your flightnumber in the MCDU and your company code in Topcat. ex: UAL999 (MCDU) UAL (topcat).

 

Erik

 

Thanks for the help Erik, it worked.

 

Best regards

 

Peter Lund

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

Yup, I know. But given that we can't do that, a standalone device would be more realistic even if it isn't commonly used in real life.

 

If it isn't used in real life, what would make it more realistic? Leaving it by itself or adding some weird, non - realistic design that you would never see in a plane?

 

 

My understanding is that standalone ACARS devices are used in some situations. In any case, a standalone device that could theoretically appear is more realistic(to me, at least), then using a boeing MCDU for ACARS in Airbus, or using separate MCDUs for the FMC and ACARs in a boeing.