The problem is more than the codec

[Mark Loredo 1398124]

I’m new to Vatsim, I love the idea of learning to use ATC. But let me share with you one of my first experiences with one of the fine controllers:

 

controller – Squawk mrrggg themppfff gruorrnk hoarrrfff

 

me – Say again?

 

controller – Squawk mrrggg themppfff gruorrnk hoarrrfff

 

me – Squawk 1234?

 

controller – Squawk mrrggg themppfff gruorrnk hoarrrfff!

 

Me – Squawk 4567?

 

Controller – Squawk T w o T h r e e F o u r F I v e!!!!

 

 

You get my point, I’m trying to learn atc communication, not learn how to unscramble lossy latent outdated codecs with a pad and paper. The controller is understandably frustrated that I’m not accustomed to deciphering 1995 codecs.

 

But it is more than that. I use Xsquawkbox. It does what it does marvelously. But the, is it one?, maintainer can’t solve most of what’s wrong with Vatsim atc.

 

So much of what is wrong is server side. Let’s start with the low hanging fruit. Why are vatsim ATC controllers using the wrong frequencies? The real world frequencies are published. Why not use them?

 

Radio range, again, low hanging fruit, on the server side, a function of signal strength, topography and the distance to the receiver. A first year computer sci student could write the code. Instead in Vatsim the ATC stations have magical transmission capabilities that stay at maximum power until an arbitrary range cutoff.

 

I already mentioned the codec, but also, when I start Xsqauwkbox and tune a controller frequency, I’m informed by a text message in front of my state ot the art simulator that I’m entering a “voice room”. A voice room? Way to kill the immersion. I want a radio simulation, not a voice room.

 

 

I don’t know how many developers read this forum. I do know from a quick scan that something called “Swift” is coming. It was coming in 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014. 2013 All I can find about it is a recent screen shot of some UI windows. Showing lists of planes. Again….immersion, Do real pilots in real planes have floating windows showing all the nearby aircraft? Just asking. But It’s hard to judge Swift when after five years there is nothing but two screen grabs to go by. Will Swift even touch the issues I’ve listed? The wrong frequencies? The wrong broadcast ranges?

 

There’s no logical reason why a community of tens of thousands of hobbyists couldn’t rebuild Vatsim in a time scale that won’t see most members die off before we see some actual upgrades.

[Andrew Ogden]

Mark,

 

VATSIM does what it was designed to do remarkably. The audio codec is a known issue that is being actively worked on by members of the technology department. You would know that if you had been following recent posts on this forum.

So much of what is wrong is server side. Let’s start with the low hanging fruit. Why are vatsim ATC controllers using the wrong frequencies? The real world frequencies are published. Why not use them?

VATSIM is not the real world. Its called flight simulation for a reason. Controllers use published frequencies on their vACC or ARTCC website, sometimes they are the ones they use in the real world, sometimes not. In addition, VATSIM doesn't support 8.33kHz spacing, limiting the range of available frequencies a controller can use. You can find many posts on this forum regarding that. The issues you talk about aren't server related apart from the audio codec. It's up to the controller to choose their frequency they want to use.

I already mentioned the codec, but also, when I start Xsqauwkbox and tune a controller frequency, I’m informed by a text message in front of my state ot the art simulator that I’m entering a “voice room”. A voice room? Way to kill the immersion. I want a radio simulation, not a voice room.

Its all well and good saying you want a radio simulation. You already have one. When you connect to a frequency, you are connecting to a voice room with the controller and any other pilots that are on the frequency. The controller has a set visibility range (you could call it radio range if you like), when you go outside of that range you can no longer see the frequency. It isn't the real world. So what?

I don’t know how many developers read this forum. I do know from a quick scan that something called “Swift” is coming. It was coming in 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014. 2013 All I can find about it is a recent screen shot of some UI windows. Showing lists of planes. Again….immersion, Do real pilots in real planes have floating windows showing all the nearby aircraft? Just asking. But It’s hard to judge Swift when after five years there is nothing but two screen grabs to go by. Will Swift even touch the issues I’ve listed? The wrong frequencies? The wrong broadcast ranges?

Why don't you go fly a real plane if you don't like the pilot client UI in your face? No, real planes do not have floating windows showing nearby aircraft, but this is a simulation. Swift is coming, whether it is soon or in the next few years. VATSIM is as immersive as it gets, embrace what you have, rather than complaining about what you don't have.

 

Cheers,

[Don Desfosse]

Mark, you've pointed out some opportunities for the network. Andrew has explained they are well-known and being worked on. That said, with an all-volunteer force, your mileage may vary in terms of how fast things happen. I encourage you to take the p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ion you've displayed and offer your help to the tech team.

[Antony Radley]

So the guy expresses his opinion and gets jumped on ? I loath your post Andrew so very much. Like Don says he has a p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ion and is expressing his views. He is welcome to them and to share them. If you have nothing to add of value to the conversation then don’t say anything.

[Randy Tyndall 1087023]

I don't know, I wish Mark the best in his VATSIM Career and hope he sticks with us through all the issues he has with how VATSIM operates because I think he will come to enjoy it. I also hope he takes what I say next in the spirit it is given, one of "VATSIM is not perfect, but perfection is so very difficult to reach in almost every endeavor". Doesn't mean we don't try to get close to it...and I think there is effort on the part of many to try and do so...effort that we don't see, but is there, quietly working behind the scenes to make our enjoyment the best they can.

 

Mark, you have 25 hours on the network and although Andrew may have been a bit "abrupt" in his reply I tend to agree with his intent, though perhaps not his method of delivery. Every thing you mention has been hashed and rehashed many, many times, so when I noticed Antony's comment...

 

If you have nothing to add of value to the conversation then don’t say anything.

 

...I couldn't help but think that you didn't add anything either. You only repeated what so many others have already said. Too many times comments are made without either understanding the problems behind what we have versus what we want, or, they are understood, but not willing to jump in the "pool" and help make it better. it's very easy to say what is wrong with something, even harder it seems to add positive input on how to make it better it seems, and harder still, apparently, to be the one who "jumps in the pool".

 

A terrible analogy, so please forgive me, but the "fresh out of college" quarterback typically has less input to how the team is managed than one who has been with the team for a number of years and understands the mechanics of how the team works together. That does not mean, nor is it intended to imply that the freshman quarterback doesn't have the skills or ability, just not the experience...and there's no shame in not having experience.

 

I did find a couple of your comments perplexing though. First, you speak about "immersion", which can be loosely defined as realism I guess, yet of your 40 connections over the last 14 months you only filed a flight plan 7 times. Not required for VFR, but is highly recommended. Immersion? Most of your connections were 10 minutes or less. Again, immersion? You would be surprised, I think, that if you did more to make your flights as real as possible, given VATSIM's shortfalls, that the positives will greatly outweight the negatives

 

Secondly, you said...

 

Do real pilots in real planes have floating windows showing all the nearby aircraft

 

Yep, sort of...it's called TCAS with forward, above, below, and range capability.

 

So, as I said, I tend to agree with Andrew, but also have a great deal of respect for Don. Believe it or not, Mark, I also hope you can find your way past our shortfalls and enjoy what immersion VATSIM can and does offer. I fear that after only 25 hours of short flights you are not giving VATSIM the chance it deserves and will leave and not enjoy the improvements it will eventually make for itself.

 

Randy

[Andrew Ogden]

I apologise for my 'forward' post and the way it came across. My intention was to say that the good things about VATSIM outweigh the pitfalls and that we should embrace them rather than constantly rehashing and complaining about things that have been said many times before. I believe Randy stated what I wanted to say in a much better way.

 

Cheers,

[Robert Shearman Jr]

VATSIM Controllers don't always use real frequencies... most often, because the VATSIM controller for one sector of an ARTCC is covering the WHOLE ARTCC. Thst also means the radio range of that real station can't be accurately simulated, because we'll need to hear them over a much larger range of territory than the real one transmits. There are limitations to how real we can simulate reality. If you want a network where every frequency is simulated, try PilotEdge. Oops! On PilotEdge when you switch from Delivery to Ground to Tower to Departure to Center you're actually talking to the same guy every time. They have to limit their geographical coverage area because they can't expect one guy to cover 10,000 frequencies. Different networks have different methods for coping with the limitations of simulation.

 

Floating windows are an answer to a technology problem. Problem is, this ain't the real world, & not all ATC positions are always staffed. We need a way to know which ones are & which ones aren't. In reality, another nearby plane is always visible -- because, you know, light and physics and stuff. In the sim, they're just pixels on a screen, & sometimes if the computer is following its code in a way that produces an unexpected result, you need some sort of status window to determine why and fix the issue. Again, it's simply not the same as reality.

 

In the real world, a pilot can't magically appear out of thin air on the runway that there are five planes lined up on final approach for. Here, that can happen -- so, we need a way to communicate to that pilot and ask them to move, even if they aren't on the right radio frequency. Guess what? Need a text window to send messages over.

 

Some of VATSIM's limitations come from its own network architecture, sure. But you can't just s[Mod - lovely stuff] and rebuild that in a week & not lose the vast majority of your userbase who aren't ready to throw away all their software & upgrade. Building and testing the new tools on all of the platforms we need it to work on doesn't happen overnight. (That said, I agree that "Swift" was a very poorly chosen name for that project.)

 

So, yeah. You have to sacrifice reality in some ways. Different networks have different ways of coping with the limitations we face. If there's a network out there doing a better job at what we're doing, point us to it, please.