Jump to content

Discussion: If you could change one thing about VATSIM...


Recommended Posts

Dormant regions should not be required to have a regular structure(VACC) Instead, any VATSIM C1 rated controller should be able to man those positions until the situation has sufficiently improved to justify building a regular structure.

 

Excellent idea, in my opinion.

Sean

C1/O P3

spacer.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 248
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Charts - helpful if links are found on a (division?) website? Usually I just google _ _ _ _ charts

 

A very simple test [or quiz ] on sign-up like the atsimtest for S1. Provide docomeents for them to prepare. At least this ensures they will have a rough idea of what is a clearance, different types of approaches, how to talk to atc etc

 

Support for the new Europe frequencies if possible to implement

 

One has an option to view the callsign of an atc frequency in the pilot client?

well when I fly to new places I don't know if it's Control, Center or Radar, so this cld probably help

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dormant regions should not be required to have a regular structure(VACC) Instead, any VATSIM C1 rated controller should be able to man those positions until the situation has sufficiently improved to justify building a regular structure.

 

Excellent idea, in my opinion.

I thought we already have this? Every now and then you can read that such and such airspace is now "Open Airspace" and any visiting controller to that Region can control.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, apart from the (quite obvious) new voice codec, I’d like to see some sort of “restriction” during busy events and/or practical tests regarding text pilots. It is already quite stressful by itself when you have many pilots on voice as to in addition need to “take care” of all the ones on text which usually first type their readback and then comply, messing everything up...

Néstor Pérez
A Random Platypus
## [email protected]
Facebook Twitter Instagram
VATSIM Logo
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dormant regions should not be required to have a regular structure(VACC) Instead, any VATSIM C1 rated controller should be able to man those positions until the situation has sufficiently improved to justify building a regular structure.

 

Excellent idea, in my opinion.

I thought we already have this? Every now and then you can read that such and such airspace is now "Open Airspace" and any visiting controller to that Region can control.

 

Sean's point I think is not about visiting but opening up dead areas outside of the VATSIM bureaucratic visiting regime system, this is why a C3 in VATEUD is a mute rating because there is no 'real' benefit over a C1.

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for a new global membership survey.

 

The last one was in spring 2006 and we've done quite a few laps of the sun since then. Vatsim's direction is too often dictated by the (very small) vocal minority while the majority of the membership just get on with their hobby in silence. Reboot what was done in 2006 and let's see who the membership are now and what they think.

 

Do that and we have real hard nosed facts to base opinions and direction on rather than guesswork.

Bill Casey

Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to find some way to implement 8.33kHz spaced frequencies, as many major frequencies in the UK and elsewhere have changed over to the new spacing, but VATSIM cannot, causing many frequencies to be made up or "as close as possible".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean's point I think is not about visiting but opening up dead areas outside of the VATSIM bureaucratic visiting regime system, this is why a C3 in VATEUD is a mute rating because there is no 'real' benefit over a C1.

 

Exactly. It seems in some areas there's bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. These dormant regions are simply too quiet to have a regular structure enforced upon it.

 

Someone would gladly man such a dormant airspace as a change from the usual routine, but investing time, effort and going through hurdles to be rewarded a privilege to control such a dormant airspace does not seem attractive.

19
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Board of Governors
Time for a new global membership survey.

 

The last one was in spring 2006 and we've done quite a few laps of the sun since then. Vatsim's direction is too often dictated by the (very small) vocal minority while the majority of the membership just get on with their hobby in silence. Reboot what was done in 2006 and let's see who the membership are now and what they think.

 

Do that and we have real hard nosed facts to base opinions and direction on rather than guesswork.

Bill

 

This is one of the outputs we are considering as a result of this thread.

Mark Richards (811451)

Vice President Operations (VATGOV2)

Auckland, New Zealand

811451

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Remove the option to use text entirely. It completely ruins the immersion for controllers & voice pilots alike. Alternatively introduce the option to ban the use of text during events.

 

2. Better voice codec (obviously).

 

3. Introduce a rating system for pilots & controllers alike. If you’ve been in contact with someone (eg. tuned to their frequency), have a pop up asking you to rate the pilot/controller.

 

This has the benefit of nudging people into polite / professional behaviour, as a poor (public) rating would be frowned upon. At the same time it allows new pilots to join the network without being required to sit an entrance exam, but still have them strive to improve their rating - and thereby their skill level.

 

4. Display traffic properly. Hook into the simulators, lower the gear when the pilot actually does it. Same goes for flaps, lights & general tracking of aircraft around the network.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a controversial one:

 

Some sort of mic test (through pilot client) for those that choose to use voice.

 

5 lights - must achieve 3 green lights to connect.

 

I'm not suggesting we punish those that choose text over voice either before anyone jumps on that bandwagon, just an idea to address mic/audio quality.

Matt Booker
VATSIM Senior Supervisor

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would change the mode to change the frequency of the radio DELIVERY, GROUND, TOWER, APPROACH, CTR and vice versa, it takes too much time, to write .com1 and send key, especially immediately after take-off and in the approach phase that you have to do many things in little time, you have to bear in mind, that in the flight simulation we are alone, there is not the captain and the first officer: in my opinion it needs a faster mode through a click.

 

By Alessandro Anile 1405999

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let go of old technology. One reason I heard that the voice codec is not being updated so as not to let go of Squawkbox and FSInn client users. Reality check, we are in the 21st century and even Microsoft stopped supporting Windows XP. I gave up believing Swift will be 'the' client solution. My personal opinion will be that POSCON will go live before we even see a Swift beta. Move the technology into the 21st century.

 

If you own any flight simulation software older than 10 years - upgrade.....

Edited by Guest

Andrew Morkunas

Twitch: padre_andrew ATC Simulations

 

0

Link to post
Share on other sites

When POSCON gets released I dont think VATSIM will have much to compete with, why don't we face it and just help doing a smooth transition into a more tech advanced network, aren't we all here because we love the hobby? I guess it shouldn't be a problem then to move on to a new place where things probably will be better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The leadership.

 

Become a network that embraces the changing landscape, don't fight it. Don't be dial up in a broadband world.

 

Cheers,

Rahul

Rahul Parkar

"On second thoughts Nappa, catch it, catch it with your teeth" -- Vegeta

Professional Nerd. (Professionally not professional)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me just quickly toss my hat on the bandwagon for some form of mandatory pilot training. I don't think a mandatory P1 would be too much to ask of new members, nor would it place too great a burden to enact since the existing PTD specs do not call for anything more than a written test, which we handle in a completely self-guided, automated fashion. As far as I am concerned, VATSTAR would be prepared to implement this tomorrow, if in some strange parallel universe it were to happen that quickly.

Cheers,

-R.

fvJfs7z.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

From a controllers perspective, I do not care to control on the network much anymore due to the lack of professionalism by the part of some pilots. A good majority of the pilots online do a decent job but it tends to be the few that ruin all the fun for everyone else.

 

Pilot training should be mandatory and it should be done in-house. With the advent of FSX on steam, we saw an influx of pilots onto the network that treated like it was a GameSpy server.

 

From a members perspective, the owners clinging onto the network like it's some golden egg is really poor form. VATSIM should have become a non-profit LLC a long time ago. With expanded financial resources from donations, this place could have had a dedicated pilot and ATC client years ago. Not to mention a change in codecs.

 

In short, it's time to start from scratch. Remove all elected positions and generate a new structure to help run the network. Everything from pilot training to ATC, to client D&D, should be done in-house and not left to individual developers. Like many others, I work for an airline as a pilot and VATSIM used to be a fun way to experience the other side of the mic. Pilots, on the whole, used to be more professional and take this seriously. It is my opinion that if the network continues to operate in this outdated fashion then eventually it will be replaced by a new network or users will slowly splinter off to other networks.

ZNY ARTCC S3

FAA ATP CFII/MEI

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think a small test before allowing pilots to connect to the network, no training required but just basics of the procedures like how to request IFR clearance and other basics similar. This could be done in a Moodle course with the basic information.

 

The biggest thing that has to change soon is the voice codec, the sound quality is awful and when combined with poor mic quality and maybe a different accent it can be near imposible to hear some pilots as a controller and as a pilot it can be even harder over the noise of the engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Remove the option to use text entirely. It completely ruins the immersion for controllers & voice pilots alike. Alternatively introduce the option to ban the use of text during events.

.

Been discussed more times then you can count , Not every VATSIM pilot has the ability to speak or hear!!!

 

I would change the mode to change the frequency of the radio DELIVERY, GROUND, TOWER, APPROACH, CTR and vice versa, it takes too much time, to write .com1 and send key, especially immediately after take-off and in the approach phase that you have to do many things in little time, you have to bear in mind, that in the flight simulation we are alone, there is not the captain and the first officer: in my opinion it needs a faster mode through a click..

 

It's called anticipate, Listen to the channel, easy to figure out where you're going to be sent off next.

 

 

I've been on this network for some 20yrs now and although I absolutely agree pilots should have some sort of clue before logging on I don't ever see it happening. To many want everything spoon fed to them. Can't be bothered to get charts, enter the proper ICAO codes for aircraft or airlines, determine active runways. Which are ALL available online. It's very easy to make yourself a knowledgeable and competent pilot, but that would involve reading and learning, Which has become a lost art.

 

I believe change is needed, and change it good but it's only as successful as the people involved with it.

Edited by Guest

Clarke Kruger

Edmonton (CYEG) AB, Canada

VATSIM Network Supervisor | Team 1

Have a question? Email [email protected]

23

Link to post
Share on other sites

VATSIM's motto is "As real as it gets"

 

No it isn't nor has it ever been. That is a Microsoft motto for their product.

 

Take it then off the website then! This is the first thing people see when they go to the website. Why are we promoting something that at the end of the day, VATSIM doesn't support. If VATSIM doesn't support it, remove it. This is part of the problem. The BOG and the Founders need to get on the same page before anything getting talked about above gets done.

 

https://prnt.sc/jwz2zz

 

https://www.vatsim.net/about

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...