Jump to content

COPX feature request


Daniel Klepp
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've been working a lot with COPX lately, and it's not always easy. My experience is that the rules often conflict with how ES predicts the aircraft descend/climb path.

 

Wouldn't it be nice if the SECTOR1:SECTOR2 part of the COPX line would override and force eursocope to consider the next controller in the COPX instead of the next predicted controller?

 

I've been thinking and i cant come up with any downsides to this suggestion..

C1/INS

Director of Norway FIR

Vatsim Scandinavia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the moment achieved by the 'GUEST' function, but I agree, it would be nice to set the next sector (note sector, not controller) in stone for certain routes.

 

Do people like the 'GUEST' feature? There's an agreement in the UK that could involve any of 5 position identifiers having an aircraft transferred to them whilst it's in a third party's airspace (who will never speak to the aircraft) - that means I have to define 5 guests, whereas a forced agreement could remove this need?

ATC Examiner, VATSIM UK

No nonsense controlling Twitch - HazControl ✈️

@HVatsim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Wouldn't it be nice if the SECTOR1:SECTOR2 part of the COPX line would override and force eursocope to consider the next controller in the COPX instead of the next predicted controller?

 

I've been thinking and i cant come up with any downsides to this suggestion..

 

What happens if the selected next point jut cuts a bit, so the new FP goes in a way that does not cross SECTOR2 at all?

Gergely.

EuroScope developer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...