Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Getting rid of top-down coverage is a bad idea. We barely get staffed airports as it is. That would take the fun out of flying for the guys who try to keep it as close to read as possible.

 

One thing we do need is a different ATC callsign. NY for instance ha controllers who log on and control the entire N90 tracon. a simple change to NY_APP would cut down on the confusion when one controller decides they just want to control one airport and the other wants to control all of them.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Getting rid of top-down coverage is a bad idea. We barely get staffed airports as it is. That would take the fun out of flying for the guys who try to keep it as close to read as possible.

 

One thing we do need is a different ATC callsign. NY for instance ha controllers who log on and control the entire N90 tracon. a simple change to NY_APP would cut down on the confusion when one controller decides they just want to control one airport and the other wants to control all of them.

 

This isn’t having a go at you Joshua, but a lot of places believe in realism before fun. At some times I honestly think we should apply to the FAA to be a training organisation. There are areas that strive for and demand 100% realism, I think time will show whether it is fruitful.

Sean

C1/O P3

spacer.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
This isn’t having a go at you Joshua, but a lot of places believe in realism before fun.

And, similarly, Sean, this isn't an attack on you, but just a general statement of philosophy -- I don't think realism and fun on VATSIM are, nor should they be, mutually exclusive concepts. I do, however, agree that there are instances on the network where that is very much the case.

Cheers,

-R.

fvJfs7z.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definately the server structure! The voice codec is horrible and there needs to be much higher refresh rates for sync of aircraft and all that stuff (I#m not a tech guy so please forgive me if I don't call everything by it's correct name ). There also should be the possibilty to exchange more information, for example flap setting, gear setting and lights! We are not in the 90s any more and no one is flying with modem (and if he is, it's his problem, but shouldn't make the 99 % of the rest that have faster internet suffer)!

That would be a very very important and great step forward! VATSIM is sleeping till many many years. No innovations. If there weren't some individuals that create new clients, we would still all be flying with squawkbox (no offense to that software, but it is outdated by far!). Make VATSIM modern and we will get more pilots and with that a greater experience!

 

Thank you for listening! That alone is a great step forward!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely the software.

 

I am not sure about the status of the VATSIM FSD Servers, however from what I could find I'm going to take a bit of an extreme position and say: A complete rewrite of protocol and all software might be the best way.

 

Because this is a job which is not going to be completed by one person in their free time, VATSIM should collect all members which are able and willing to help and generally be more open about its software. (Maybe even Open Source the software?)

 

This new software would aim to fullfill the other goals which have already been stated: Better voice codec, better synchronization, more security for the data involved, ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to what others have said (basic pilot exams, new voice codecs); the creation of CPDLC system/client. It seems like the major developers have started (some completed) the aircraft side of things. This would reduce frequency congestion and add to the overall immersion factor.

3712.png
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you to those that are commenting, especially those many members who appear to be their first or second post ever. I think it shows that if you are open and ask, members will engage.

 

To those that don’t feel their voice or opinion is worth the effort. This is our network, it’s our future, get involved.

Sean

C1/O P3

spacer.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff!

I too am excited at the delivery of ACARS/CPDLC. But this will need a major overhaul by VATSIM if they are to stay a major ATC player into the future. If VATSIM is not already considering these functions then my guess is that a major, existing developer will be challenging with a completely new alternative.

Is anybody listening and already acting

Cheers, Richard

You are the music, until the music stops. T.S.Eliot
Link to post
Share on other sites
In addition to what others have said (basic pilot exams, new voice codecs); the creation of CPDLC system/client. It seems like the major developers have started (some completed) the aircraft side of things. This would reduce frequency congestion and add to the overall immersion factor.

 

CPDLC is just another text based communication system, really no more different than using the way we use text now(just with a fancy GUI for ATC and having it built in some aircraft), it takes out the voice aspect of communications which is the 'human' interaction factor.

 

A lot of ATCs like the voice(human interaction) side of this hobby, I understand some people have to use text for various IRL issues but it definitely takes away some immersion from the ATC side.

 

Frequency congestion can be reduced with the voice architecture and latency.

 

I'm not saying don't use it, I only point out that it also takes away immersion for some people too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Johnny,

Since when have we avoided the implementation of existing real-world procedures just because some may not like to use them?

 

I simply pointed out that CPDLC is just another form of text and some don't like using text(read some responses in this actual thread about the usage of text).

 

Did I say avoid implementing it?, no.

 

Do you honesty think we'll have a simplified, one size fits all versions of simulators, 3rd party aircraft CPDLC integrated pilot client?...yeah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Johnny,

Since when have we avoided the implementation of existing real-world procedures just because some may not like to use them?

 

I simply pointed out that CPDLC is just another form of text and some don't like using text(read some responses in this actual thread about the usage of text).

 

Did I say avoid implementing it?, no.

 

Do you honesty think we'll have a simplified, one size fits all versions of simulators, 3rd party aircraft CPDLC integrated pilot client?...yeah.

 

Actually, CPDLC would have come in real handy at the last CTP event. IRL it's required for 'off-track' routings, etc. HF is mostly outdated and not used anymore expect for private operators going to Bermuda using older aircraft. My last operator had Cessna Bravos and Ultras that had HF so we could go to Bermuda.

 

There will never be enough ATCs online to be able to handle all the voice congestion that occurs. CPDLC is utilized for PDCs, enroute changes (mostly oceanic), and a few other things.

 

I don't think it would take away from the normal voice operations that we all use normally. CPDLC also integrates in to the aircraft's systems.

 

Anyways, that's just a brief description. I'm sure you can google it and find out more. I don't want to type out a huge summary of it.

3712.png
Link to post
Share on other sites
Johnny,

Since when have we avoided the implementation of existing real-world procedures just because some may not like to use them?

 

I simply pointed out that CPDLC is just another form of text and some don't like using text(read some responses in this actual thread about the usage of text).

 

Did I say avoid implementing it?, no.

 

Do you honesty think we'll have a simplified, one size fits all versions of simulators, 3rd party aircraft CPDLC integrated pilot client?...yeah.

 

I also forgot to mention that PMDG is implementing it in the upcoming 748 as well as ACARS which can also be used with their upcoming new ops center. So it can be used universally with the ops center, VAs, and/or online networks as the user see's fit.

3712.png
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see a state of the art network protocol.

 

A real time position update between all aircraft is absolutely possible nowdays (without the need for too big internet bandwidth). Combined with a state of the art voice codec and good clients (at least for P3D we have vPilot) we could have a network which is ready for the years to come.

 

This would be a VATSIM dream come true for me...

David Kirchner
ATC Department Director

 

##  [email protected]
##  [email protected]
 

VATEUD Logo

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be really cool that VATSIM could coordinate with scenery developers so that the docking system would be connected to a centralised system where in case of events, ATC could coordinate SOBT so the pilot would be able to see right in front of him/her how much time left he/she has before he/she should be calling ATC for PB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A thing that is useful for controllers should be useful for pilots as well. We, controllers, have an alias for text pilots that make our lives easier. This should also be implemented in the Pilot Clients voice pilots need to focus on their instruments but they have a mic while text pilots need to focus on flying and then typing. Alias should be implemented for text pilots it would make their lives so much easier as well. Basic sentences like .to Cleared for Take-Off 30R or something that is fully customizable.

CHRISS KLOSOWSKI
Division Director (Acting)
##  [email protected]   
##  www.vatsim.me
##   ##
     Signature.png.ebeb12713b17feaba5b97c3b8a413f39.png

 

 

 

   
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very quickly, a comment and then the one thing I would like to see. We are still talking about that right? I'm too lazy to go back and read through it all.

 

Now I am sure this must have been pointed out by a controller already, but when it comes to the discussion regarding CPDLC, I must have missed the part where a controller pointed out that it is more time consuming than using simple text messages and that it actually slows the controller down, especially when it comes to using it in busy airspace during a CTP type of event. It is just that simple. Sure makes the pilots job easier though I will say that.

 

Now, my one thing also has to do with the pilot side of the network. How about you figure out a way to keep everyone on the same page when there isn't a controller online? I get awful tired of mediating arguments between pilots all because one of them landed on an opposing runway to another aircraft, or didn't bother to check and wait his turn taxiing or taking off. See if you can figure out a way to do that.

__________

Ira Robinson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with auditing ATC training departments, I just looked at a facilities roster, to see C3 rated controllers that are not certified for Enroute.

Kirk Christie - VATPAC C3

VATPAC Undercover ATC Agent

Worldflight Perth 737-800 Crew Member

956763

Link to post
Share on other sites
Make weather transitions more fluid and less abrupt. I get a jolt when landing in clear conditions and the weather suddenly turns to pea soup.

 

Other than that, keep up the good work, you're just a great concept VATSIM!

 

That is not the fault of Vatsim, there is nothing Vatsim can do to improve your weather transition, that is dependent on what ever weather engine you are using.

815851

Link to post
Share on other sites
So what do VATSIM weather feeds do? Maybe we should turn them off.

 

There is nothing wrong with the Vatsim weather feeds, it is external programs like ActiveSky etc that control the transition between weather. Michael was going on about the transition.

815851

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all!

 

Thanks for the comments. A lot of it relates to my department of technical development and the voice codec.

 

Rest [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ured, I am not just a 'seat warmer' - we are actively developing a new voice system and exploring the options for a complete protocol re-write.

 

I am also working on removing the NDA and allowing the whole community to contribute to a rewrite of the server protocol to fix many issues that you have mentioned, and include many new features that you have all spoken about.

 

But it cannot be a one-man show!

 

Please, if you can help me and VATSIM, send me an email and say hi! We need as much help as we can get. I am sure there are some of you who have contributed to this thread and can help! I look forward to hearing from you all.

Zach Biesse-Fitton
VATSIM Developer and Supervisor | VATPAC Interim Division Director

vatSys Development Team

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the previous posts it looks like new pilots are a major concern. From an ATC point of view I totally agree. An aweful lot of NEWBIE pilots do not have a clue about flying, logging on to the network correctly and some don't even know that there are resources that can be used to get help. Could there not be an entrance test, with rescources to give the new pilot the basic knowledge to log on to the system and not cause problems due to lack of basic knowledge?

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...