Andrew McCluskey Posted October 23, 2011 at 11:17 PM Posted October 23, 2011 at 11:17 PM Over the past few years, I've began to notice the poor state of the VATSIM pilot software. There are only 2 choices: 1. The original client, Squawkbox, from the SATCO days. 2. The aspiring, yet incomplete client, FSInn. Both have their pros and and their cons. The biggest thing Squawkbox has going for it is that it's simple to use, and relatively user friendly, especially to set up: you can usually just install it and fly straight away. FSInn, on the other hand, whilst feature rich and offering superior functionality, requires a lot of effort and know how to get it working to its fullest potential. In comparison to IVAO's IVAP, VATSIM's software is severly lacking. I'd just like to point out that I'm in no way promoting IVAO or their software, IVAP has its shortcomings, I'm just using it as an example to compare VATSIM's software against. This is only natural, as these 2 organisations — as we all know — are the 2 major players in this market, and I've tried out both. (I prefered VATSIM overall, you'll be glad to hear) The major thing that IVAP has got over VATSIM's two clients is the multiplayer traffic. IVAP comes out of the box with a selection of over 4000 aircraft models and paintjobs, all modelled and painted to a good standard. While FSInn can be configured to use any AI Aircraft (including IVAO's MTL), it's a time consuming, and often frustrating process, and still isn't perfect. Squawkbox still uses fixed gear models straight from the FS98 era, and whilst you can use modern AI aircraft models with it, they float around the airfield, as Squawkbox can't lower the gear. This doesn't really help to welcome people new to the hobby, not clued up on Windows, Flight Simulator, or just computers in general. Basically, what I'm trying to get at is VATSIM needs to bring its pilot software up to date. Like the controller software, Euroscope is a brilliant, modern piece of software, for example. I'm not demanding a client that can do everything, I'm not demanding, or asking for anything, I'm just giving my opinion, on how I see it from a pilot and controller who's tried both networks. If VATSIM wants to continue to be the leading community in virtual air traffic simulation, then the possibility of developing some new pilot software, to bring us up to date should be seriously considered. Not only will this improve the realism and immersion factor, but it will make VATSIM seem far more welcoming to those who've just discovered this wonderful virtual world. I still remember the first time I stumbled upon VATSIM's old website. It's one of the best things I ever discovered, helping to inspire me to pursue a career in aviation. I just want it to continue to inspire other young, budding pilots, for many years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Wolpert Posted October 23, 2011 at 11:26 PM Posted October 23, 2011 at 11:26 PM FSInn works fine, except that the link to the AI database for model matching is not working, this is major. You are slightly incorrect in stating Squawkbox goes back to the SATCO days, it has actually been completely rewritten for FS9 and possibly for FSX although I am not sure that it works that well. Bottom line is that the pilot clients are in woeful shape and in need of a major upgrade, hopefully VATSIM is working on it or there may not be much of a network left in a little while down the road....and I hate to say that as I have been exclusive to Vatsim from day one. Mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Sequeira 1192651 Posted October 24, 2011 at 02:51 AM Posted October 24, 2011 at 02:51 AM I really really like SB4. I have only one problem, that the only solution that I ever get is..."run it externally". But, I don't have the best computer in the world....and being able to enjoy the frame rate increase of running full screen would be nice, if I could only get SB4 to not constantly disconnect and lag out FSX if I ran it in module mode..... Getting tired of running windowed mode only due to SB4....But oh well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fuller 973577 Posted October 24, 2011 at 12:12 PM Posted October 24, 2011 at 12:12 PM Even the best computers have to run SB4 externally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wycliffe Barrett Posted October 24, 2011 at 01:40 PM Posted October 24, 2011 at 01:40 PM My understanding is that there are at least two pilot clients in development. FSinn is a stable platform and the majority of issues arise from users not following the installation routine and trying to force square pegs into round holes, so to speak. also it would appear that a feature rich client can confuse some members into thinking its not stable also, I dont know why that is? perhaps they have trouble with Win7 as well as that is feature rich also. Squawkbox is also a stable platform rewritten for FSX, it handles aircraft recogniition poorly and you can see paper darts when the model matching is off, but that is about it really. As I always say try both and choose which one you prefer. Wycliffe Wycliffe Barrett: C3 Controller "if god meant for us to fly, he would have given us tickets" Mel Brooks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Boffa 1171726 Posted December 2, 2011 at 04:49 PM Posted December 2, 2011 at 04:49 PM I like squawkbox. No real issues with it. It has some quirks but once you know them its very stable. I really like the simplicity and that it does what I need it too. The only things I would like to see is an improved weather engine (although many use active sky so not a big deal) and it might be nice to smooth the visuals a bit. FSInn did a better job with that. I find other traffic motion pretty choppy. But other than that, simple is better. I can appreciate FSInn and the features it has but I also feel like its not necessary to go that far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts