Visibility Range

[Ross Carlson]

If more pilots with higher range are querying the server, then doesn't it use more bandwidth?

 

Pilots don't query the server. The server simply sends data for all aircraft within range. That range is determined by the server, not by the pilot software. (Unlike controller software, which allows the user to vary the range at which they see aircraft.)

 

I agree with Ernesto that you cannot see the plane, actually FS9 only shows 10 miles and FSX will show it a little farther out, but FSInn Rad shows upto 120 miles, just the data.

 

FS9 will show you aircraft further out than 10 miles, as long as your pilot software is adding them to the multiplayer session. What you're thinking of is the label. FS9 switches off the aircraft label at 10 miles. The actual plane model is still there, though, as long as it's still in the multiplayer session.

[Charan Kumar]

Ah...tq kindly for the xplanation!!

[Brendan Samson 1070087]

Ross,

This is a little off topic, but do you know how the range of other pilots you can "hear" on unicom is determined?

[Ross Carlson]

Ross,

This is a little off topic, but do you know how the range of other pilots you can "hear" on unicom is determined?

 

That's based on "radio range", which is a function of altitude. It has a minimum, which is something like 50 NM, but as you get more altitude, you can hear text transmissions further away.

[Brendan Samson 1070087]

Ross,

This is a little off topic, but do you know how the range of other pilots you can "hear" on unicom is determined?

 

That's based on "radio range", which is a function of altitude. It has a minimum, which is something like 50 NM, but as you get more altitude, you can hear text transmissions further away.

 

Cool thanks.

[Jonas Eberle]

Maybe this should be looked at by the server admins:

 

I use FSNavigator on FS9 which allows to connect to the FSInn-Multiplayer Session. You see all planes around you with callsign,speed,altitude.

 

I normally use an FSInn visibility range of 18nm - obvious that FSNavigator shows planes in this diameter.

When I pull up FSInn multiplayer range to 150nm - FSNavigator shows planes 150nm around me, with ~1 update/second !

 

My conclusion:

Either

* Pilot clients are ALWAYS receiving pilot's updates in a wide range

or

* Range setting in FSInn matters

[Ross Carlson]

Maybe this should be looked at by the server admins:

 

I use FSNavigator on FS9 which allows to connect to the FSInn-Multiplayer Session. You see all planes around you with callsign,speed,altitude.

 

I normally use an FSInn visibility range of 18nm - obvious that FSNavigator shows planes in this diameter.

When I pull up FSInn multiplayer range to 150nm - FSNavigator shows planes 150nm around me, with ~1 update/second !

 

My conclusion:

Either

* Pilot clients are ALWAYS receiving pilot's updates in a wide range

or

* Range setting in FSInn matters

 

It is the former. The server is always sending you data for planes as much as 150nm out. The range setting in FSInn just determines which of those are added to the MP session, and thus which ones will appear on FSNav. The reason you are seeing fast updates in FSNav is because FSInn interpolates the positions between the 5 second updates it gets from the server, so that the movement appears smooth on screen.

 

Were you definitely seeing planes at 150 miles out? I didn't think the pilot vis range was set that high in the server. Been a while since I looked at the code, though.

 

Edit: Just looked at the code, and it appears that pilot visibility range is limited to 100nm.

[Jonas Eberle]

Thanks, that clarifies it. But as to visibility ranges vs. network bandwidth discussion, pilots (clients) should be taken into consideration because of the 1:7 ratio I was talking about before.

 

One TWR controller with a range of 100NM is not nice, but has as little effect as one plane more or less.

 

 

 

Maybe this should be looked at by the server admins:

 

I use FSNavigator on FS9 which allows to connect to the FSInn-Multiplayer Session. You see all planes around you with callsign,speed,altitude.

 

I normally use an FSInn visibility range of 18nm - obvious that FSNavigator shows planes in this diameter.

When I pull up FSInn multiplayer range to 150nm - FSNavigator shows planes 150nm around me, with ~1 update/second !

 

My conclusion:

Either

* Pilot clients are ALWAYS receiving pilot's updates in a wide range

or

* Range setting in FSInn matters

 

It is the former. The server is always sending you data for planes as much as 150nm out. The range setting in FSInn just determines which of those are added to the MP session, and thus which ones will appear on FSNav. The reason you are seeing fast updates in FSNav is because FSInn interpolates the positions between the 5 second updates it gets from the server, so that the movement appears smooth on screen.

 

Were you definitely seeing planes at 150 miles out? I didn't think the pilot vis range was set that high in the server. Been a while since I looked at the code, though.

 

Edit: Just looked at the code, and it appears that pilot visibility range is limited to 100nm.

[Ross Carlson]

Thanks, that clarifies it. But as to visibility ranges vs. network bandwidth discussion, pilots (clients) should be taken into consideration because of the 1:7 ratio I was talking about before.

 

They certainly are, but since there is nothing that users can do to change the bandwidth consumption of a pilot client, it's a different discussion than the issue of vis range for controllers. It's more a topic for the developers of the network protocol.

 

One TWR controller with a range of 100NM is not nice, but has as little effect as one plane more or less.

 

Certainly true, but that doesn't mean a TWR controller should use 100 NM. If he can do his job with a range of 50nm, then that's a bandwidth savings.

 

Also keep in mind that not all pilots have a range of 100 NM. It's based on altitude. Aircraft on the ground have a much shorter range. (As low as 10 NM.)

[Scott DeWoody]

What gets me is why this topic has to go as far as 6 or more pages. Unless one is financially supporting VATSIM, it means that they are enjoying this great hobby (game,simulator, sport.. whatever you want to call it) for NO charge, ....FREE. So when one of the people that IS financially supporting it says "Hey, help us out here and please keep your vis range down to what you absolutely need to do your vJOB and save some bandwith (cost)". We as controllers should collectively say "Sure no problem, and thanks a million for providing this service to us"

 

It's kinda like your boss, or parents telling you, "Please keep the door closed, the heat/ac is on" because you aren't paying for it, they are.

 

 

My .02

[Luke Kolin]

What gets me is why this topic has to go as far as 6 or more pages. Unless one is financially supporting VATSIM, it means that they are enjoying this great hobby (game,simulator, sport.. whatever you want to call it) for NO charge, ....FREE. So when one of the people that IS financially supporting it says "Hey, help us out here and please keep your vis range down to what you absolutely need to do your vJOB and save some bandwith (cost)". We as controllers should collectively say "Sure no problem, and thanks a million for providing this service to us"

 

The problem is that this attitude makes no allowances as to whether the people who are financially supporting VATSIM are reasonable in their requests.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Roland Collins 800023]

What gets me is why this topic has to go as far as 6 or more pages. Unless one is financially supporting VATSIM, it means that they are enjoying this great hobby (game,simulator, sport.. whatever you want to call it) for NO charge, ....FREE. So when one of the people that IS financially supporting it says "Hey, help us out here and please keep your vis range down to what you absolutely need to do your vJOB and save some bandwith (cost)". We as controllers should collectively say "Sure no problem, and thanks a million for providing this service to us"

The problem is that this attitude makes no allowances as to whether the people who are financially supporting VATSIM are reasonable in their requests.

 

Cheers!

Luke

If the requirement in relation to visibility range is considered unreasonable then the proper protocol is to put forward a case for having it changed. I have yet so see how asking users to use only what they NEED is being unreasonable or represents a flawed attitude. Perhaps I missed something somewhere?

 

Roland Collins

VATSIM co-Founder

VATSIM VP Regions

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

 

The problem is that this attitude makes no allowances as to whether the people who are financially supporting VATSIM are reasonable in their requests.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

 

Who gets to be the arbitrator of reasonablness? Usually the owner of subject property. While others may have an opinion about someone else's property and how it should be used, in the end the owner gets to decide. I own a 1970 Ford F100 Pickup my youngest son would love to drive, but I don't let anyone but myself drive it; am I unreasonable? Does he really get a vote on how my truck gets used or driven? (No, he doesn't). Does it matter the reasons I won't let others drive my pickup? Not really, its mine and I can allow or not allow whomever I wish to drive it. Does my son think me unreasonable? You bet, but his motives are self serving and have little to do with my wishes for my truck.

 

My mother used to tell me I could take as much on my plate as I needed but to not be wasteful and take more than I needed or could eat. As Roland says, the viz range issue is exacly the same. Take as much as you need but not more than you need. If you think the current paradigm is incorrect, submit to your local ATM/DD reasons why it should be expanded and if you are correct it likely will get expanded.

[Luke Kolin]

Holy thread ressurrection Batman! Must be a slow day on the BoG.

 

We could have an interesting discussion over the long-term strategic benefits of not sweating the small stuff, the decreasing cost of bandwidth and strategic leaders versus myopic small proprietors, but I think we've had it before and I don't want to waste the precious bandwidth. It would consume far more than a few overly large visibility ranges, to no effect.

 

Despicably yours,

Luke

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

Aren't VATSIM's members part of, and a critically important resource to, VATSIM. It seems quite inappropriate to describe the people comprising VATSIM and the people running VATSIM as in a hierarchial relationship or a lender-borrower/parent-child relationship. The technological resources comprising VATSIM are quite ordinary in this day and age. The thing that makes VATSIM valuable are it's people.

[Roland Collins 800023]

You are quite right Darrol; all members in VATSIM are equal in that they all have the same opportunity to fly, control, hold office or even be VATSIM President. Simply being a VATSIM member is enough to open the door to these exciting opportunities.

 

Quite apart from the participation aspect there's another side of the VATSIM organization that is related to funding and liability since there are costs involved and there are legal responsibilities. VATSIM is accountable for what it does on the VATSIM network or what it allows to take place on the VATSIM network. The Founders are liable so whilst they enjoy the same usage privilege they are not equal when it comes to a matter of accountability under appropriate law.

 

There are others, some not even members, who pay for it all; servers, network, WebPages, downloads, licence fees etc. In total there are considerable costs involved in providing the VATSIM network and VATSIM relies heavily on sponsors. Our sponsors understand what we are trying to do and are happy to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ist us but expect us to respect their financial support and not abuse it. That puts VATSIM Founders in a position where we can say to members you can actively participate as much as you like since that is fully supported however; whilst participating we respectfully ask that you use only what you expressly need for your participation and no more.

 

Sometimes the financial burden becomes too great and VATSIM loses a sponsor. In order to sustain the network you all enjoy Founders have to work hard to find another sponsor. Those sponsoring VATSIM today are not the same sponsors as yesterday; and so it goes on.

 

We generally don't talk much about these matters other than to ask members to show respect and consideration for those who pay for it all regardless of how much or how little it costs. Most members understand that and realize it is a necessary and reasonable request. Scott Dewoody summed it up on 15 Feb.

 

Luke Kolin resurrected this thread and I responded because I find Luke’s attitude quite unreasonable; being only about what Luke wants with little or no regard for anyone else. Luke’s signature today says it all; loud and clear.

 

As others have said, it shouldn’t take 6 or more pages for a member to understand a simple and reasonable request from Founders; especially since it in no way affects their on-line participation.

 

Fly, control, enjoy!

 

Roland Collins

VATSIM co-Founder

VATSIM VP Regions

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

It doesn't really seem that the argument here is about the viz range issue. That is more or less reasonable. What's concerning to some is that VATSIM seems to believe that intellectual property and capital is more valuable than the people who work with it. I personally am quite curious as to why VATSIM doesn't accept donations and instead acts as a privately run organization, rather than a community run organization(or an incorporated non-profit).

[Roland Collins 800023]

It doesn't really seem that the argument here is about the viz range issue. That is more or less reasonable. What's concerning to some is that VATSIM seems to believe that intellectual property and capital is more valuable than the people who work with it. I personally am quite curious as to why VATSIM doesn't accept donations and instead acts as a privately run organization, rather than a community run organization(or an incorporated non-profit).

The short answer to your question Darrol is that it is part of what I described as the other side of VATSIM where there are licence and legal implications and responsibilities. VATSIM does not have complete freedom in such matters. As you say, it is outside the discussion on visibility range; which I believe has run its course.

 

Roland Collins

VATSIM co-Founder

VATSIM VP Regions

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

I would agree about the viz range discussion. Although, I would say that the other topic should be discussed at some point.

[Garry Morris 920567]

It has been discussed pretty extensively actually. One reason that I can definitely understand is that when you allow donations, people start to hold it over your head. They believe that somehow, because they have given money, they are owed something. This is already apparent without having financial donations, I would think it would become far worse if financial donations were allowed.

[Luke Kolin]

Luke Kolin resurrected this thread and I responded because I find Luke’s attitude quite unreasonable; being only about what Luke wants with little or no regard for anyone else. Luke’s signature today says it all; loud and clear.

 

Luke's signature was written by Roland Collins. I recall a few posts back you described me and my attitude as "despicable". I was somewhat surprised (don't worry, like Trudeau I've been called better things by better people) and I actually thought it was rather neat. It conjured up images of dressing in black with large ball bombs and tying damsels to the railroad tracks. I merely used it as a way of showing my appreciation for calling me such a novel name, but I am afraid like much of what I say you do not understand it. Unfortunate.

 

I don't think the thread will be further served with me yet again attempting to explain that you are solving a technical problem via non-technical means and how this could be fixed with 6 lines of code instead of six pages of forum threads. Just ask Wade to change the part of FSD that processes the % command.

 

Despicably Yours,

Luke

[Roland Collins 800023]

Luke Kolin resurrected this thread and I responded because I find Luke’s attitude quite unreasonable; being only about what Luke wants with little or no regard for anyone else. Luke’s signature today says it all; loud and clear.

Luke's signature was written by Roland Collins. I recall a few posts back you described me and my attitude as "despicable". I was somewhat surprised (don't worry, like Trudeau I've been called better things by better people) and I actually thought it was rather neat. It conjured up images of dressing in black with large ball bombs and tying damsels to the railroad tracks. I merely used it as a way of showing my appreciation for calling me such a novel name, but I am afraid like much of what I say you do not understand it. Unfortunate.

 

I don't think the thread will be further served with me yet again attempting to explain that you are solving a technical problem via non-technical means and how this could be fixed with 6 lines of code instead of six pages of forum threads. Just ask Wade to change the part of FSD that processes the % command.

 

Despicably Yours,

Luke

NO Luke; I described your attitude as being "unreasonable"; check above where you have quoted me. Also, the signature on your your posts is written by you, not me; and you have used the same signature today.

 

You sign as "Despicably Yours"; presumably because you view yourself that way or wish others to have that view of you.

 

Respectfully yours

Roland Collins

[Luke Kolin]

You sign as "Despicably Yours"; presumably because you view yourself that way or wish others to have that view of you.

 

You called me that name on April 9th, I believe. Thank you for the clarification on my signature - which part of it do you find objectionable?

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Alex Bailey 969331]

(Sorry to revise this yet again, I've been out of the country and busy with other matters but thought I could contribute to the discussion.)

 

Darrol,

 

The solicitation and acceptance of donations opens a whole new can of worms for an organization, whether they are non-profit or not. It is important to remember that non-profit does not directly translate to tax exempt status, and there are a handful of states in the US that require additional paperwork and authorization beyond the federal 501©(3) requirements. This would depend on the location of the registration of the organization, presumably Ohio. Not to mention the expense and amount of due diligence that goes into an application. I don't know whether VATSIM has secured any of these from a legal standpoint, but this is simply the beginning to a convoluted process involving donations to VATSIM. Add in the management structure of the organization and it would simply be a nightmare. Garry brings up an important point where a person who donated may then try to hold it over VATSIM's head. On the other hand, who in VATSIM can be trusted to maintain control of the finances and be willing to accept responsibility of doing so? What checks would be in place to ensure proper use of those funds? If I were a Founder, I simply wouldn't be able to place enough trust into the organization to handle such a delicate process due to how VATSIM operates. It is a volunteer organization comprised of members all over the world, and in most cases these people have never met face to face.

 

Back on topic for this thread, the issue of visibility ranges has been argued for years. It comes down to a simple principle - people making a mountain out of a mole hole. Kyle summarizes the issue quite well, VATSIM and those who own the resources that we are privileged to utilize can dictate how we can operate. In this case, the owners have given more than enough freedom to operate on this network without impacting others' enjoyment, which includes resources and the financial burden placed upon the sponsors. Since we are using donated resources at no cost to ourselves, how unreasonable can it be to follow their simple request? If I'm controlling a tower position in South Florida, I don't need to see planes arriving and departing in New York. It comes down to principle, if VATSIM was a water faucet in your home and you were paying the bill, would you use excess water than you need or leave the faucet running while you were gone? I'm sure the answer to both is "no".

 

Luke generally raises valid concerns regarding many technical aspects of VATSIM, whether or not the venue for discussion is appropriate. His way of thinking is sometimes counter to what many believe is the status quo, which results in his ideas being written off. I would suggest that people be more open to positive discussion and constructive criticism rather than bantering like children over who called who a certain name in the forum. If the issue is about management process and principles, then it would be best to share ideas through the appropriate avenue which in this case would be to contact the Board of Governors directly rather than using a forum post. However, I know that management will always analyze and critique the messenger of the information before reaching a conclusion about the validity of the message (and I know Luke knows this quite well at this point ), it's human nature. If he is right, then he's right and may be more beneficial for VATSIM to disregard pride and make the logical decision.

 

Best,

[Roland Collins 800023]

Thanks for your comments Alex.

 

Forums discussion typically ends up with a range of different opinions and an outburst of feelings that generally ends up going nowhere; except being periodically recycled in the forums. I have made comment about unacceptable use of forums and I don’t intend to revisit that point.

 

On the other hand, it is certainly acceptable to use forums to flag issues in the hope that it might result in discussion in appropriate places outside of the forums. Elsewhere, when discussing rules and policy, I said the ultimate authority rests with the authors or those responsible for managing the rules. I often provide insight on how or why VATSIM rules are the way they are but I don’t by any stretch of the imagination have ultimate authority in respect of these.

 

To those reading the forums I have said that rather than engaging in forum argument the best way is to write directly to VATSIM and put forward a rational case for having something changed. In this way a member directly engages the authors and is not attacking the forum messengers who are trying to explain the current rules.

 

Writing to VATSIM doesn’t guarantee that a member will get the outcome they desire since, as I mentioned, VATSIM is compelled to take into consideration other aspects not normally in public view. Nevertheless, I believe writing to the appropriate authority is the proper way to proceed.

 

Roland Collins

VATSIM co-Founder

VATSIM VP Regions