my VA Does not support X-Plane

[Fernando Valderrama 128049]

I finally was able to make xacars work with my VA and logged quite a few flights with it.

 

I p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ed the written exams for Online Pilot and took my check ride yesterday to the surprise that the xacars protocol does not supply enough information for the criteria that Delta requires.

 

I'm now "forced" to have to invest in MS fsx , their airplanes and all the software / plugins / nightmare involved.

 

Is there any other Vatsim Officla Test Recognized Airline that can give me the ranking that I'm looking for and that supports X-Plane ?

Edited April 17, 2014 at 06:47 PM by Guest

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

you arent forced to do anything

 

there are several delta virtuals to choose from, all can be found on the VA partners link

 

make sure you read the VA's policies and operations manuals BEFORE you join. it will tell you what sim's they support, etc..

 

if you are trying to get a pilot rating, they cannot force you to use a different sim, it doesnt work like that, it doesnt matter if you use Xplane, FSX, etc... try emailing the VA and asking them what you need to do.

 

there are also other VA's and groups that offer training which are also linked in the VA partners

[Luke Kolin]

if you are trying to get a pilot rating, they cannot force you to use a different sim, it doesnt work like that, it doesnt matter if you use Xplane, FSX, etc... try emailing the VA and asking them what you need to do.

 

Actually, they can.

 

Part of the challenge we face is that while we support X-Plane for most aspects of the VA, the Academy/ATO does not because XAcars does not send us very much information, and none at all about ATC interaction. I'm not sure how a pilot can demonstrate online proficiency if we cannot determine whether they interacted at all with ATC.

 

I think the real solution to the problem is when the X-Plane ecosystem reaches maturity with a decent API and tools that allow access in languages other than C++. XAcars is a pretty primitive first-generation ACARS package, and desperately needs to be replaced.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

thats not forcing the user to use a different simulator, you would hopefully, have the supported simulators, clients, etc... already spelled out in a policy manual or operations manual before the user begins to waste his time. thats my point, you arent forcing them to use anything

[Mark Wolpert]

I think BA Virtual is the same but it may be due to issues of integrating the VA's ACARS system.

[Fred Michaels 1137645]

Just as a point of clarification, there are many VAs that do not properly specify in "materials" what client software they are expecting...so some need to cool their horses just a minute. Many VAs run on an [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umption that the entire planet is functioning on Microsoft flight products, which hasn't been the case for over half a decade. In some circomestances, the only way to even determine such a situation exists is to review the available downloads on the VAs website to see they are only designed for one particular client. Personally, sounds like something VAs need to start adjusting to. Attempting to recruit or demand potential members of a group only use a software package that is already nearly 8 years old, isn't designed for modern OS and no longer actively in development doesn't seem like a sustainable long term plan for growth.

[Thomas Drewing]

Thank you Fred,

 

I could not agree with you more!

 

Frighteningly, the flight simulation community is a Microsoft dominated world, though their simulators are outdated.

 

And while we are on it, not even VATSIM supports clients for all operating systems.

So the VA's lack of support is a homemade problem.

 

I think, that is not state-of-the-art at all but simply unprogressive.

[Fernando Valderrama 128049]

Just to share my experience with any one facing my situation.

 

After installing, configuring and trying to learn again MS FS9 (I did'nt want to spend the money on FSX if you're asking me), I come to realize that X-Plane is such an advance in realism, flight dynamics, graphics quality and all-in-all miles ahead of any Microsoft Product.

 

Yesterday I said, what that heck, let's try this thing. The FSINN menu (squackbox) is so daunting to use I could not even connect to Vatsim. Trying to capture and ILS and actually land the plane is an adventure in its own. Cycling in views delays and even pauses the game.

 

Imagine a typical day in Atlanta on final with 10 arrivals behind you all of a sudden they change the approach controller and now instead of 27R you are asked to land on 27L. Time to get your charts. No Problem. Just ALT-TAb to google chrome and look at the atlanta plates to change the NAV1 freq. BUT WAIT !!!!! If you ALT-TAB, the simulator pauses until you get back. AAAAHHHHH!!!! Says the controller. What are you frigging pausing for !!!! Can't you see you have 10 people trying to land behind you ???? (And you know how patient are the controllers in KATL, nothing personal).

 

I will try to (RE)learn FS9 but the VA's really need to realize that there are better simulators out there. And back to my original question:

 

Does any one know an alternate VA, other than Delta, that can accept an exam and a check ride with XACARS, so that I can finally get my Online Pilot Ranking ???

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

Fernando, a few things to note

 

FSINN and Squawkbox, two different clients. FSINN can be a little trickier for some users. squawkbox is pretty straight forward to use

 

for the sim pausing, you can actually disable that. its in the general settings of the sim. "disable pause on task switch"

 

one VA that i can tell ya fully supports Xplane is CalAir. not sure if they are a VATSIM authorized pilot training group though, but i do know they fully support Xplane

 

the network is also working on updating the VA partners page so you can see who supports what in the descriptions instead of having to browse them all. at the moment, thats pretty much all you can do, browse the list, go through the operations manuals, etc.. if they dont list anything, contact them. especially the training groups.

 

also dont forget the pilot ranks are optional, its not a must. another pilot training program that may interest you if you cant find anything, the ZLA pilot training program. dont need an acars program for that one to my knowledge

[Fernando Valderrama 128049]

Thanks Ernesto. I didn't know FSInn and Squackbox were different programs

[Luke Kolin]

Personally, sounds like something VAs need to start adjusting to. Attempting to recruit or demand potential members of a group only use a software package that is already nearly 8 years old, isn't designed for modern OS and no longer actively in development doesn't seem like a sustainable long term plan for growth.

 

To be fair, I'd love to support X-Plane. I recognize that we're moving towards a multi-sim world and I think it's a good thing. I wish Laminar would make some more efforts to create a proper developer ecosystem where it becomes easy to create add-ons that work with X-Plane or installers that add aircraft and scenery to the sim.

 

I spent some time in 2010 and 2011 retrofitting our ACARS software so that it was simulator agnostic. All I've been waiting for since then is either a willing expert in the X-Plane ecosystem or a proper SDK involving something other than C++. It feels like coding [Mod - Happy Thoughts]embly and dealing with annoyances such as header files, the linker and lord knows what else takes me back to 1991 whereas any other language I program in lets me focus on my specific problem rather than fighting the tooling.

 

Flightsim and P3D have a lot more add-ons because there's a better developer ecosystem. If Laminar wants to seriously start dislodging the FSX/P3D market share, they need to start making it substantially easier to develop killer add-ons. There's a lot of latent demand at both the developer and consumer level.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Mike Evans]

I spent some time in 2010 and 2011 retrofitting our ACARS software so that it was simulator agnostic. All I've been waiting for since then is either a willing expert in the X-Plane ecosystem or a proper SDK involving something other than C++. It feels like coding [Mod - Happy Thoughts]embly and dealing with annoyances such as header files, the linker and lord knows what else takes me back to 1991 whereas any other language I program in lets me focus on my specific problem rather than fighting the tooling.

 

 

What exactly do you suggest that's cross-platform & performant enough to run inside the sim?

[Luke Kolin]

What exactly do you suggest that's cross-platform & performant enough to run inside the sim?

 

I'm not suggesting something different running in the same process as the sim itself; just a mechanism to allow easy access to processes external to the sim running with different languages.

 

Just like FS; FSUIPC is C/ASM but exposes a convenient and performant interface for anything from Delphi to Java .

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Bradley Grafelman]

X-Plane's SDK for plugins is actually quite good, IMHO - we've done lots with it at work. You could always invest the effort in making a plugin whose sole purpose is to become a gateway/API for external "plugin" access.

 

Personally, I'm of the mind "If you want it done right, do it in C."

[Fred Michaels 1137645]

To be fair, I'd love to support X-Plane. I recognize that we're moving towards a multi-sim world and I think it's a good thing. I wish Laminar would make some more efforts to create a proper developer ecosystem where it becomes easy to create add-ons that work with X-Plane or installers that add aircraft and scenery to the sim.

Luke,

 

I am not disagreeing with you at all! I personally am dealing with ongoing headaches involving xSquawkBox after upgrading to X-Plane 10 but some help from people here got things working of. However, at the same time, I have heard feedback from more than one person that tried to join a VA about essentially being ostracized because they wish to use a software package designed for 64-bit systems. Some organizations have been able to find a balance understanding the difficulty X-Plane pilots face. At the same time however, many are simply openly hostile to non-Microsoft products. Yet even people I know who just 12 months ago said they were fine with FSX are these days talking about giving X-Plane a try because of expanding scenery packages, the simply wonderful graphics, etc.

 

The fact is, those who use X-Plane are, while not intentionally, sometimes left to fend for the s[Mod - lovely stuff]s at the table. Case and point, many of the new clients that are under development sounded like a great thing. Until comments were made "Well we are focusing on FSX and will get to X-Plane if we have time since no one uses it." Yet as time has moved on, I'm seeing more and more people making that switch...yet the attitude remains. Anyway.

[Fernando Valderrama 128049]

I truly believe Xacars is a great plugin, not like many FSx or FS9' ers say . It has helped log flights with or without VATSIM and adds a lot to the realism that comes with starting a plane's engines out of the gates from scratch.

 

Delta people are telling me that Vatsim is the one that places the rules on how to file a PIREP, but I've vistited at least 2 more VA's that "Seem" to support XACARS for the checkride.

 

Don't take me wrong. I like the structure of Delta. I like their pilot rankings system, all their resources and the ease at which you advance. I just don't like their "microsoft only" policy.

[Ernesto Alvarez 818262]

Delta people are telling me that Vatsim is the one that places the rules on how to file a PIREP

 

hmmmm not sure whos telling you that but VATSIM has no input at all in how you file a pirep with your VA

[Luke Kolin]

I truly believe Xacars is a great plugin, not like many FSx or FS9' ers say . It has helped log flights with or without VATSIM and adds a lot to the realism that comes with starting a plane's engines out of the gates from scratch.

 

XACARS seems great because you have very little to compare it with. I agree that on its own it's a decent flight logging tool, but it's very much a first generation flight logger and in terms of user friendliness, data capture and features it's been superceded for a while now.

 

You've flown more than a few XACARS flights with Delta Virtual. Go compare how much data is in your flight reports compared to my log book and my flights. I've been able to get a fair bit out of the XACARS data, but it still logs a lot fewer parameters less often.

 

Delta people are telling me that Vatsim is the one that places the rules on how to file a PIREP, but I've vistited at least 2 more VA's that "Seem" to support XACARS for the check ride.

 

VATSIM won't set restrictions on how you file a PIREP. They do, however, set restrictions on what the ATOs may use to demonstrate competency in the subject matter for a course. I'm not sure how XACARS can be used to demonstrate online competency if it has no information as to your online activity or who you interacted with. I suspect you will need to find an ATO that uses live instruction/evaluation.

 

Don't take me wrong. I like the structure of Delta. I like their pilot rankings system, all their resources and the ease at which you advance. I just don't like their "microsoft only" policy.

 

To be fair, they don't have a "Microsoft only" policy in general. You've flown more than a few flights and you should be able to use XACARS for regular check rides. They can't accept it for the flight academy. I'm personally sorry they don't communicate that enough.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Fernando Valderrama 128049]

To be fair, they don't have a "Microsoft only" policy in general. You've flown more than a few flights and you should be able to use XACARS for regular check rides. They can't accept it for the flight academy. I'm personally sorry they don't communicate that enough.

 

When you say "regular check rides", are you talking about 737 captain program for instance ? Because if that is the case, I'm sure I can take the Vatsim Online Pilot P1 somewhere else and keep on advancing on Delta as I've been doing. I just don't want to take check rides on FS9 and continue gathering hours and flight legs on X-plane. I want to use all X-Plane

[Luke Kolin]

When you say "regular check rides", are you talking about 737 captain program for instance ?

 

You should be able to - at least from a technical perspective. There's nothing in the system that prevents an XACARS flight to be used as a Check Ride for promotion. Now keep in mind that you don't need a check ride to get promoted to Captain, just to switch equipment programs.

 

If you hear differently, let me know. There's a fair bit of confusion regarding X-Plane and XACARS because it's so rarely used and we need folks like yourself to give it the exposure it needs.

 

I just don't want to take check rides on FS9 and continue gathering hours and flight legs on X-plane. I want to use all X-Plane

 

You should try a flight or two with FS9 and Delta's ACARS to compare it to X-Plane. I'd be interested in your opinions.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Fernando Valderrama 128049]

You should try a flight or two with FS9 and Delta's ACARS to compare it to X-Plane. I'd be interested in your opinions.

 

The problem is no ACARS. I'm sure is better than XACARS. The problem is FS9 or FSX. The flight dynamics and controls are so difficult even the simple act of lining up to a runway and safely slowing down is a mission. Maintaining airspeed or Altitude without A/P is almost impossible. If I could control the flight as good as I do with X-Plane I wouldn't be making such a fuss about it.

[Ross Carlson]

The problem is FS9 or FSX. The flight dynamics and controls are so difficult even the simple act of lining up to a runway and safely slowing down is a mission.

 

You're exaggerating and/or generalizing. Thousands of pilots line up to a runway and safely slow down every day without issue, using FSX or FS9.

 

Don't get me wrong, X-Plane will always win when it comes to flight dynamics (especially near the edges of the flight envelope,) but FSX and FS9 aren't nearly as bad as you make them sound. Could it be that you are using a particularly poorly-engineered aircraft?

[Keith Smith]

There are more choices than just C++. There are plenty of Python-based plugins for X-Plane (such as FSEconomy). Delphi is also an option (for those who are inclined) and lastly, there's a LUA-based framework for X-Plane (Gizmo).

[Fred Michaels 1137645]

You should try a flight or two with FS9 and Delta's ACARS to compare it to X-Plane. I'd be interested in your opinions.

I'll be honest, I think what many people are missing is that more and more folks are changing to X-Plane because of the 64-bit ability (at least from what I'm hearing). Case and point, how many pilots were reported "Your computer is our of memory" errors during CTP this past weekend? Even one of the live streams had that happen when they were about 20 minutes from landing. Such is what happens when you may be using a system with 8GB of memory but with a software package that can't see anything beyond 3.5. Situations like these are a main reason I know many are changing the simulator they use. As far as people saying FS9 or FSX are horrible products, I don't believe they are. In fact, I have the install CDs for FSX sitting right over there...no a little to the right. However, for me personally, the methods utilized for controlling aircraft are radically different. That's what one would expect, so many people who "started" on one product don't look to make a change unless their is a dire need.