Jump to content

Logic For Sector/Sectorline ON/OFF


Recommended Posts

As for FSS, I never used them and I'm not sure you can arrange it so that a plane is inside 2 sectors at once. Unless both controllers have a different ESE file of course. Even with GUEST function only one will win.

CTR will always win, that's for sure because it's defined first. Since it is VFR flights only, it is not necessary to win. The main purpose in that constellation is to provide an active sector for the FSS controller. If he tracks them or not, I would probably in this case suggest not to, especially since it's no control service, would only make a difference for the display on the CTR controller's screen. But that depends on the details of the procedures used for the FSS station.

 

And putting that aside, personally I would suggest not to use FSS but to use a CTR suffix. FSS has the 1500nm radio range hardcoded in the server, which is not necessary for such a small sector. It would probably be better to just user _I_CTR or something like that.

Stephan Boerner

VATEUD - ATC Training Director

EuroScope Board of Designers | GVCCS Beta Tester

edff,euroscope,ger1oic,lhaoic.jpg

EuroScope Quick Start Guide

Link to post
Share on other sites

The callsign is not a factor, they will use ZWG_RD_CTR as far as I know. FSS position would need to have lists populated at least. Never to track planes.

 

FSS position also need IFR FPs since he relays IFR clearances and arrival messages (IFR cancellation) to ATC at non-towered airports on a MF (mandatory frequency). These fields are most likely surrounded by a cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] E CZ.

 

What about using only a generic sector for FSS and defining DEPAPT and ARRAPT with all the airports in the FIR. That way only overflights wouldn't be in their lists and that's not really a problem (a VFR overflight requesting flight following would still be in FP list). I'll run some tests with the simulator using that setup and will keep you posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Stephen,

 

Bad news. Despite our efforts, I am still unable to de-activate the sectors being controlled by controllers coming onboard to control the subsectors while centre is occupied.

 

My amended sector list:

 

;- -I-N-T-E-R-N-A-L- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

;** LO **
SECTOR:CZWG_LF_CTR:0:28500
OWNER:ZGA:ZGC:ZGR
BORDER:E10:I24:I20:E18

SECTOR:CZWG_LB_CTR:0:28500
OWNER:ZGA:ZGC:ZGR
BORDER:E11:E12:E13:I23:I24

SECTOR:CZWG_LC_CTR:0:28500
OWNER:ZGA:ZGC:ZGR
BORDER:E14:I22:I23

SECTOR:CZWG_LN_CTR:0:28500
OWNER:ZGA:ZGC:ZGR
BORDER:E15:E16:E17:I20:I22

** HI **
SECTOR:CZWG_FL_CTR:28500:65000
OWNER:ZFL:ZGC:ZGR
BORDER:E10:I24:I20:E18

SECTOR:CZWG_BR_CTR:28500:65000
OWNER:ZBR:ZGC:ZGR
BORDER:E11:E12:E13:I23:I24

SECTOR:CZWG_VC_CTR:28500:65000
OWNER:ZVC:ZGC:ZGR
BORDER:E14:I22:I23

SECTOR:CZWG_NL_CTR:28500:65000
OWNER:ZNL:ZGC:ZGR
BORDER:E15:E16:E17:I20:I22

;- -W-I-D-E- -A-R-E-A- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SECTOR:CZWG_RDO:0:65000
OWNER:ZGR
BORDER:E10:E11:E12:E13:E14:E15:E16:E17:E18

 

So close....! Any further thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Stephen,

 

Thanks ... I think I know what you're referring to. Since these subsectors don't have individual lo controllers for them, all are owned primarily by CZWG_A_CTR. I guess though, before the next owner (which I currently have as CZWG_CTR), I need to put the subsector high positions in first ... zwg_br_ctr etc.

 

We did some testing last night with this current ese and it was messy. Although sector CZWG_BR_CTR was being controlled, and the remainder of CZWG_CTR controlled, no one on the LO, all text comms where being broadcast on both the hi and low frequencies for some reason. (Messages were being repeated on two different frequencies, whether just local or were actually being broadcasted is unknown).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks ... I think I know what you're referring to. Since these subsectors don't have individual lo controllers for them, all are owned primarily by CZWG_A_CTR. I guess though, before the next owner (which I currently have as CZWG_CTR), I need to put the subsector high positions in first ... zwg_br_ctr etc.

Yes

We did some testing last night with this current ese and it was messy. Although sector CZWG_BR_CTR was being controlled, and the remainder of CZWG_CTR controlled, no one on the LO, all text comms where being broadcast on both the hi and low frequencies for some reason. (Messages were being repeated on two different frequencies, whether just local or were actually being broadcasted is unknown).

But that's unlikely to be caused by the ESE file. http://www.euroscope.hu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Voice_Communication_Setup

Stephan Boerner

VATEUD - ATC Training Director

EuroScope Board of Designers | GVCCS Beta Tester

edff,euroscope,ger1oic,lhaoic.jpg

EuroScope Quick Start Guide

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob, for testing ESE files most of us use scenarios built with a list of controllers (corresponding to the potential line-up during events or normal ops) and then we play with the simulate button to turn on and off different controllers. It's very easy then to figure what's working and what's not. Of course if nothing works then back to the manual.

 

On my last post I said I was gonna run some tests for FSS positions (CZUL also plans to eventually bring this to VATSIM), so until we figure how it will best work (please trust my experience) leave that on the shelves. I'll start today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks fellows,

 

Stephen, I will amend the ESE accordingly. I never thought to check out the communications dialogue last evening to see what was going on in there. Perhaps those channels were (somehow?) inadvertently selected. All of us testing last evening had similar problems.

 

JF ... yes ... I think RDO is unnecessary at this time until we figure it out and will be removed from our operation. BTW ... I have been sternly advised that this is NOT an FSS.

 

Needless to say ... another round of testing. I've been working through understanding the scenario option in ES, and have been trying unsuccessfully to build scenario files with ASE to use with it. I have enough on my platter trying to sort this out than to add to the frustration of others with the challenges I face with scenarios. LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...