David Malinowski 1087539 Posted August 18, 2011 at 04:52 PM Posted August 18, 2011 at 04:52 PM Hey guys, since I'm running out of suggestions, I figure I might as well release it and correct problems/inaccuracies as I get the chance. The link can be found here and copied to as many ARTCC/FIR forums as you want to copy it to. The other "official" links may be found at the NYARTCC and VATUK forums. Thanks guys! Download HERE To install these, you click the start menu, type %appdata%/vatspy in Run/Search and replace the files in that folder with the files enclosed. Rename the original ones first as a backup. Current occasional pilot Former New York ARTCC Level 5 Approach Controller | Former Jacksonville ARTCC and vatUK SE/EGLL RTS Visitor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Grauers Posted August 18, 2011 at 09:28 PM Posted August 18, 2011 at 09:28 PM Nice work, some questions. Is Padova FIR always included in Milano FIR now? I notice it's gone. Reyjkavik Radio covering greenland at least used to be called BGCC_FSS (IIRC). How ever it seems it's now changed again, perhaps someone from VATEUD can bring some clarity to this? Any chance of getting the new london sectors updated? I think you can skip the TC sectors but having LON_W, N, S and C correctly shown would really help pilots I think. Well that's all my quick look found, I'll post with more stuff if I see any. Nice job Johan Grauers Event Coordinator - vACC Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Malinowski 1087539 Posted August 18, 2011 at 10:55 PM Author Posted August 18, 2011 at 10:55 PM Nice work, some questions. Is Padova FIR always included in Milano FIR now? I notice it's gone. Reyjkavik Radio covering greenland at least used to be called BGCC_FSS (IIRC). How ever it seems it's now changed again, perhaps someone from VATEUD can bring some clarity to this? Any chance of getting the new london sectors updated? I think you can skip the TC sectors but having LON_W, N, S and C correctly shown would really help pilots I think. Well that's all my quick look found, I'll post with more stuff if I see any. Nice job That'll happen soon enough (UK sectorization). I've got a lot going on at home and I'm still trying to devise the most efficient way to split that up. And this is the point, to have errors corrected And Padova I think is combined with Milan, yes. Current occasional pilot Former New York ARTCC Level 5 Approach Controller | Former Jacksonville ARTCC and vatUK SE/EGLL RTS Visitor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Luca Dobinson 111247 Posted August 19, 2011 at 12:20 PM Posted August 19, 2011 at 12:20 PM Padova is not a FIR, it is a portion of airspace delegated from Milano (LIMM) ACC to Padova (LIPP) ACC. LIMM FIR includes both LIPP and LIMM ACCs. The sector LIMM_N_CTR, on 127.450, provides top-down coverage for both LIMM and LIPP ACCs if LIPP_N_CTR is not online. LIPP_N_CTR can be opened independently however when online it only covers LIPP ACC. Here you can see a detailed diagram of LIMM FIR. Hope this helps VATITA Training Director [email protected] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Grauers Posted August 19, 2011 at 03:28 PM Posted August 19, 2011 at 03:28 PM Nice, thanks Johan Grauers Event Coordinator - vACC Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Grauers Posted August 19, 2011 at 07:59 PM Posted August 19, 2011 at 07:59 PM New thing St.Petersburg control also covers ULOL, ULPH and possibly even some more FIRs. This was changed in the latest servinfo update Johan Grauers Event Coordinator - vACC Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Malinowski 1087539 Posted August 21, 2011 at 08:52 PM Author Posted August 21, 2011 at 08:52 PM New thing St.Petersburg control also covers ULOL, ULPH and possibly even some more FIRs. This was changed in the latest servinfo update Clarify this exactly? Is this a UIR? Okay and today I updated the GULF_FSS to include Egypt and Jordan. Sorry I'm being a bit Teamspeak-ish about this. Current occasional pilot Former New York ARTCC Level 5 Approach Controller | Former Jacksonville ARTCC and vatUK SE/EGLL RTS Visitor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Grauers Posted August 21, 2011 at 09:13 PM Posted August 21, 2011 at 09:13 PM Teamspeak is good No it's just that there's no need to cover those FIRs separately (due to traffic levels) so it's constantly bandboxed (at least that's how I've understood it). I'm sure someone from VATRUS can clarify if they see this Johan Grauers Event Coordinator - vACC Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Schpitzer 1174936 Posted August 23, 2011 at 01:19 AM Posted August 23, 2011 at 01:19 AM I updated the one David just realeased to show all airports in CZUL FIR as well, and a couple minor ones in CZYZ that were missing. I'm working on fixing some other things as well in the CZYZ-CZUL boarder. Here is the download link to the airport file, http://www.box.net/shared/fuuk0ymzxhs4hxu0anh4 , I will upload the updated boarder when I finish. 1174936, S3/P1 CZYZ FE CZUL, ZNY, ZOB, ZBW Visitor Canforce CEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rahul Parkar Posted August 23, 2011 at 01:27 AM Posted August 23, 2011 at 01:27 AM What's up with the ZMA, ZMO and MYNN borders, The way it's displayed ZMO / ZMA seem to overrule MYNN's airspace when they are both active, as well as either of them covering up half of MYNN when online alone? Cheers! Rahul Rahul Parkar "On second thoughts Nappa, catch it, catch it with your teeth" -- Vegeta Professional Nerd. (Professionally not professional) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Schpitzer 1174936 Posted August 23, 2011 at 01:29 AM Posted August 23, 2011 at 01:29 AM I noticed that too 1174936, S3/P1 CZYZ FE CZUL, ZNY, ZOB, ZBW Visitor Canforce CEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Malinowski 1087539 Posted August 23, 2011 at 03:38 AM Author Posted August 23, 2011 at 03:38 AM I added a few missing airports in addition to a few updates. But officially, the full implementation of Quebec's update will have to wait (je ne seis pas porquai...désolé mes amis de Québec!) And that's how ZMA/MYNN work in terms of Airspace. MYNN only controls up to a certain level. These boundaries are the actual boundaries described in both the ZMA sector diagram in addition to a recent airspace map. Current occasional pilot Former New York ARTCC Level 5 Approach Controller | Former Jacksonville ARTCC and vatUK SE/EGLL RTS Visitor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Grauers Posted August 23, 2011 at 12:59 PM Posted August 23, 2011 at 12:59 PM Oh I remembered now. ESOS control covers ESAA fir (ESOS+ESMM FIR) ESMM Control covers ESMM fir only. Right now ESOS is shown as covering ESOS fir which is not correct since it also covers ESMM when not online. Johan Grauers Event Coordinator - vACC Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James 1018738 Posted August 23, 2011 at 02:37 PM Posted August 23, 2011 at 02:37 PM Hi David, Re the UK sectorisation, does Vatspy facilitate a dual function ownership of airports in two FIR's. (Something that Servinfo cannot do) ? This is related to airfields/airports showing correctly for each FIR. In other words, as an example, if EGTT_CTR is online covering the whole FIR plus just one other sub-sector at the same time, lets say for example LON_W, which sector would "own" EGFF and EGGD ? At the moment, any "LON" call sign is aliased to light up the whole EGTT FIR as active, I am interested in how you are going to achieve the sectorisation properly so that pilots can use Vatspy effectively Regards David David James VATSIM Screenshot Contest Coordinator Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 2.4gig, RAM 3.25gig, ATI Radeon HD4800, XP Pro SP3, FS9.1 FSnav FSinn VRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Grauers Posted August 23, 2011 at 03:28 PM Posted August 23, 2011 at 03:28 PM Vatspy can only [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign one area to one control position. Example: Sweden is divided into two AoRs ESOS and ESMM All of Sweden FIR is called ESAA We use ESOS and ESMM ctr. ESMM ctr covers ESMM AoR (logical right?) ESOS covers ESOS and(!) ESMM AoR. How ever ESOS can't be [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned both areas in Vatspy, to work around this we define ESAA as a new area (being equal to ESOS+ESMM) and say that ESOS_CTR cover ESAA AoR This means that if ESOS Signs on all of Sweden shows as controlled, if ESMM signs on only ESMM AoR shows as controlled. For london what would have to be done is to define several areas. Perhaps EGTT (as it is now) LON W LON N LON SC LON S LON C LTC MAN Then you correlate the positions to these EGTT = LON CTR LON W =LON W (duh) etc This way for example if you sign in as LON_SC you will show as covering the entire area, if one of the splits sign on later it will be shown correctly. It's a fair bit of work but I belive this is the only way taht will work, if I'm wrong I'm sure Ross or someone else will correct me Johan Grauers Event Coordinator - vACC Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James 1018738 Posted August 23, 2011 at 04:06 PM Posted August 23, 2011 at 04:06 PM I understand what you have done there Johan. If EGTT is hard-coded as an FIR into the program, then any LON callsign will illuminate the whole FIR due to the bandboxed callsign of LON_CTR being the Primary (top down) control position - this already using the alias function. This was the stumbling block with Servinfo, naming convention and alias. Hopefully, David can find a way around this Regards David David James VATSIM Screenshot Contest Coordinator Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 2.4gig, RAM 3.25gig, ATI Radeon HD4800, XP Pro SP3, FS9.1 FSnav FSinn VRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Schpitzer 1174936 Posted August 23, 2011 at 04:19 PM Posted August 23, 2011 at 04:19 PM Updated for all CZUL and CZWG airports now as well Tim had previously added all CZYZ airports, next on my list is CZQM+CZQX. Still working on boarder between CZYZ-CZUL. Haven't uploaded new one yet, gonna wait till I do all of Canada then maybe send it to David and have all the canadian airports copied and pasted into whatever updates he has. 1174936, S3/P1 CZYZ FE CZUL, ZNY, ZOB, ZBW Visitor Canforce CEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Grauers Posted August 23, 2011 at 04:32 PM Posted August 23, 2011 at 04:32 PM I understand what you have done there Johan. If EGTT is hard-coded as an FIR into the program, then any LON callsign will illuminate the whole FIR due to the bandboxed callsign of LON_CTR being the Primary (top down) control position - this already using the alias function. This was the stumbling block with Servinfo, naming convention and alias. Hopefully, David can find a way around this Regards David Ah right, forgot about that, Vatspy only looks at the first sequence. Not sure how we can work around that, but then I'm not the most experienced with vatspy either. Johan Grauers Event Coordinator - vACC Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Schpitzer 1174936 Posted August 24, 2011 at 03:43 AM Posted August 24, 2011 at 03:43 AM I updated the update and it now has every airport in Canada. David, let me know if u want me to send u the canadian airports portion of VATspy.dat to paste in. 1174936, S3/P1 CZYZ FE CZUL, ZNY, ZOB, ZBW Visitor Canforce CEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Malinowski 1087539 Posted August 25, 2011 at 12:48 AM Author Posted August 25, 2011 at 12:48 AM John Grauers, can you please confirm that the BIKF/BGGL boundaries are correct please? Thanks! Current occasional pilot Former New York ARTCC Level 5 Approach Controller | Former Jacksonville ARTCC and vatUK SE/EGLL RTS Visitor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Grauers Posted August 25, 2011 at 01:37 PM Posted August 25, 2011 at 01:37 PM Yep they look right Johan Grauers Event Coordinator - vACC Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Grauers Posted August 25, 2011 at 05:01 PM Posted August 25, 2011 at 05:01 PM To go back a bit, there is a workaround for the LON problem. If you sign in with LON-C_CTR, LON-N_CTR etc, then vatspy will accept them as covering diffrent areas. This is done with ENBD and ENBD-S_CTR, ENBD covers all of ENBD except for ENBD-S (even when not staffed separately) and ENDB-S only covers that area. Johan Grauers Event Coordinator - vACC Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James 1018738 Posted August 25, 2011 at 06:13 PM Posted August 25, 2011 at 06:13 PM Good news ! But what do they light up on the map ? Will be interesting to see. David James VATSIM Screenshot Contest Coordinator Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 2.4gig, RAM 3.25gig, ATI Radeon HD4800, XP Pro SP3, FS9.1 FSnav FSinn VRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Grauers Posted August 25, 2011 at 08:20 PM Posted August 25, 2011 at 08:20 PM They ligt up the [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned area, what needs to be done is this. Create 7 new areas giving us EGTT (the current area) LON W LON N LON S LON C LON SC LTC MAN Presuming you want LTC and MAN to show up in vatspy offcourse, they can also be integrated into LON N and S areas. Then you "attatch" the sectors along this scheme EGTT = LON CTR LON W = LON-W_CTR LON N = LON-N_CTR LON S = LON-S_CTR LON C = LON-C_CTR LON_SC=LON-SC_CTR LTC=LTC_CTR MAN=MAN_CTR Fairly straight forward. What will happen is that if you sign in with for example LON-W Only that area will light up. If you sign in with LON-SC that area will light up. If LON-S signs on afterwards it will light up that area but in a diffrent shade (this can be seen if ENOR CTR signs on at the same time as one of the sub-sectors ENOS, ENSV, ENBD-S or ENBD). If someone types it wrong and sign on with LON_S instead of LON-S the entire EGTT FIR will ligt up (Because Vatspy will think LON_CTR signed on, not LON-S). I'm actually quite confident this would work, even though it would offcourse take a bit of work. Johan Grauers Event Coordinator - vACC Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James 1018738 Posted August 25, 2011 at 11:58 PM Posted August 25, 2011 at 11:58 PM Seems fairly plausible, should be good to see at long last, superb David James VATSIM Screenshot Contest Coordinator Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 2.4gig, RAM 3.25gig, ATI Radeon HD4800, XP Pro SP3, FS9.1 FSnav FSinn VRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts