Thomas Purbs 943647 Posted September 27, 2007 at 06:32 AM Posted September 27, 2007 at 06:32 AM So all the old FIRs still exist, but it's only who controls different parts that has changedCorrect, as Dieter explained. We keep the old training and organization structures alive, but callsigns and sectorization as real.Right so all you'd need to do is extend both FIRs (in the data file) out into the EDBB FIR.This is all we can do in Servinfo, but this is unfortunately not what is covered, only when both EDMM or EDWW-CTR are active. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Stjepanovic 963114 Posted September 27, 2007 at 09:04 AM Posted September 27, 2007 at 09:04 AM Right I gotcha now. Well, the only thing that I can suggest to get you as close as possible on ServInfo is to go with this last solution of expanding the FIRs even though it's not what is really covered. However this will in a sence show the AORs and also play fair with the callsigns over the entire "new FIRs"....just like the rest of the world does. Unfortunately SI won't ever be developed as an entity anymore, so showing sectors smaller than an ARTCC or FIR won't be possible....Unless they are all shown as different FIRs....but that'd just clutter things up even more and confuse the hell out of people. Hope all this was of some use Controllers have feelings too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfredo Pacheco Jr 966120 Posted September 27, 2007 at 10:02 AM Posted September 27, 2007 at 10:02 AM seamus What do you mean vroute is not updated. Michal did loads of updates before he went off on vacation and will continue to do so when he gets back. I believe he is on vacation at the moment. Some of these guys who provide stuff for free do have lives you know. In regards to this quote, I made a comment to him about a feature that SI offers and Vroute doesn't. I asked him on the Vroute forum, if Vroute will have the ability to Pre-file a flight plan, and log it thru the VATSIM website. His response was that allot of people were requesting this, so he is now looking into linking Vroute with the VATSIM fligh plan. If this happens, then all Vroute users would be able to Prefile there flight plans, and at the same time load it thru VATSIM from Vroute. This feature is not availible thru SI, and would push VR a bit further in uselfulness. There are allot of things that VR doesn't have that SI does, but like Wycliffe said, we all have lives. Be thankful that this is a freeware program. He is trying his best to create a program that, we all, have been waiting for. There is prob allot of red tape that he will need to clear before he can even begin to incorperate Vroute and VATSIM fligh plan to link, and to get the codes to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James O Grady 904153 Posted September 27, 2007 at 05:14 PM Posted September 27, 2007 at 05:14 PM seamus What do you mean vroute is not updated. Michal did loads of updates before he went off on vacation and will continue to do so when he gets back. I believe he is on vacation at the moment. Some of these guys who provide stuff for free do have lives you know. In regards to this quote, I made a comment to him about a feature that SI offers and Vroute doesn't. I asked him on the Vroute forum, if Vroute will have the ability to Pre-file a flight plan, and log it thru the VATSIM website. His response was that allot of people were requesting this, so he is now looking into linking Vroute with the VATSIM fligh plan. If this happens, then all Vroute users would be able to Prefile there flight plans, and at the same time load it thru VATSIM from Vroute. This feature is not availible thru SI, and would push VR a bit further in uselfulness. Great but thats not what I'm referring to. Its good that vroute's features are being expanded upon by Michal, but Michal uses navigation data from the last freeware AIRAC cycle - 0608, fact, and a few sectors(only ones I know of, there may be more around the world) displayed in vroute are outdated, fact. There are allot of things that VR doesn't have that SI does, but like Wycliffe said, we all have lives. Your point? In all fairness comments like the one above are completely irrelevant and quite insulting, you may as well be telling me to get a life. I'm only giving my opinion on vroute(and other software), and opinions can't be all good, you have to take the good with the bad and the fact is vroute is not up-to-date when it comes to navigation data and FIR sectors, which is what this is all about. Be thankful that this is a freeware program. He is trying his best to create a program that, we all, have been waiting for. There is prob allot of red tape that he will need to clear before he can even begin to incorperate Vroute and VATSIM fligh plan to link, and to get the codes to do so. Be thankful? Again another irrelevant comment to make, I'm very thankful for the work a lot of people do to keep VATSIM going and to better the experience, I appreciate it as much as the next person but I'm just giving my opinion on a piece of software, how does that make me ungreatful? Like I said, regarding what we're talking about here which is updating sectors, vroute is not up-to-date on this, you can ignore this fault and try back it up with irrelevant points by listing loads of other features it has, but its a significant fault when it comes to whats being discussed, and I was just giving my opinion. I hope that at some point in the future vroute will be updated to display all sectors accurately and maybe use updated navigation data, but currently this is not the case. Obviously this isn't to say vroute doesn't have a lot of other great features, it does, but as I said its pretty irrelevant to whats being discussed. I don't want to take this topic off course as the issue here is about updating ServInfo, not on the features of vroute, so I think we should just leave it, theres no point discussing it any further as we both obviously have different views on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carlson Posted September 27, 2007 at 06:48 PM Posted September 27, 2007 at 06:48 PM I don't want to take this topic off course as the issue here is about updating ServInfo, not on the features of vroute, so I think we should just leave it, theres no point discussing it any further as we both obviously have different views on this. Kinda funny, saying this at the end of a long off-topic post. Guys, please drop it. Neither this thread nor this forum category are about vroute. Keep it on topic so I don't have to lock the thread. If you want to argue about the virtues of other software, please use IM, PM, or email. Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Fisher Posted September 29, 2007 at 09:33 AM Posted September 29, 2007 at 09:33 AM To those in charge of the UK airspace...for the love of God....please get your updates in especially for the upper level controllers such as London, Manchester, etc.. control. So us Yanks will finally know when we are in your airspace. Now when London Control signs on, his FIR boundary goes all the way up to Scotland. Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Doorgakant Posted September 29, 2007 at 10:15 AM Posted September 29, 2007 at 10:15 AM To those in charge of the UK airspace...for the love of God....please get your updates in especially for the upper level controllers such as London, Manchester, etc.. control. So us Yanks will finally know when we are in your airspace. Now when London Control signs on, his FIR boundary goes all the way up to Scotland. London, Manchester = TMA Not FIR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Murphy 912359 Posted September 30, 2007 at 05:11 PM Posted September 30, 2007 at 05:11 PM London, Manchester = TMANot FIR Shouldn't that be TMA to FL660 or wherever it caps out? I've rarely had a TMA that didn't take high level traffic. Stephen Murphy - VATeir Director Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luca Vetturi 874351 Posted October 1, 2007 at 12:49 PM Posted October 1, 2007 at 12:49 PM Shouldn't that be TMA to FL660 or wherever it caps out? I've rarely had a TMA that didn't take high level traffic. I've never seen a TMA with a ceiling at FL660 BTW, I've never seen a specific airspace reach FL660, too Red over white, you're all right. Italy vACC proud supporter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Stjepanovic 963114 Posted October 1, 2007 at 01:14 PM Posted October 1, 2007 at 01:14 PM I think it has to do with the extended coverage in UK. Especially with MAN_W. AFAIK - It covers EGTT_N at times... Controllers have feelings too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Murphy 912359 Posted October 1, 2007 at 04:22 PM Posted October 1, 2007 at 04:22 PM Especially with MAN_W. AFAIK - It covers EGTT_N at times... Thats what I mean the TMA takes the upper airspace aswell at times. As to when it does makes it confusing enough for a controller, so I pitty the pilots. Stephen Murphy - VATeir Director Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Stjepanovic 963114 Posted October 1, 2007 at 04:51 PM Posted October 1, 2007 at 04:51 PM Hehe. Common coordination when the position first opens should do just fine. If pilots stay on advisory until contacted then there should be no probs... My view on the thing Controllers have feelings too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Doorgakant Posted October 1, 2007 at 04:55 PM Posted October 1, 2007 at 04:55 PM As to when it does makes it confusing enough for a controller, so I pitty the pilots. , It's easier to take everything in your lateral limits rather than the few below FL245/215. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James O Grady 904153 Posted October 1, 2007 at 06:14 PM Posted October 1, 2007 at 06:14 PM Especially with MAN_W. AFAIK - It covers EGTT_N at times... Thats what I mean the TMA takes the upper airspace aswell at times. As to when it does makes it confusing enough for a controller, so I pitty the pilots. AFAIK I don't thinks thats official though, it seems to only handle high level traffic under certain circomestances, which like yeah say can make it confusing for the pilot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Green 996057 Posted October 3, 2007 at 02:21 AM Posted October 3, 2007 at 02:21 AM Especially with MAN_W. AFAIK - It covers EGTT_N at times... Thats what I mean the TMA takes the upper airspace aswell at times. As to when it does makes it confusing enough for a controller, so I pitty the pilots. AFAIK I don't thinks thats official though, it seems to only handle high level traffic under certain circomestances, which like yeah say can make it confusing for the pilot. it only done by one person nomaly on MAN_W that would be george or you get brave controller who cover the whole london FIR Daniel Green Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Horan Posted October 3, 2007 at 08:31 AM Posted October 3, 2007 at 08:31 AM For London TMA I think it should be shown on Servinfo out to the Belgian, French and Dutch FIR boundaries. Whilst this is not London TMA's space, we have been asked to do this as its pointless dropping track on outbounds for a few miles for the respective next center to pick it up and vice versa, VATSIM-UK thread http://www.vatsim-uk.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7305 refers. As far as vertical limits, I dont think Servinfo can show this. Vince Horan UK DCRM, VATSIM Supervisor, Snr Controller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Stjepanovic 963114 Posted October 3, 2007 at 12:58 PM Posted October 3, 2007 at 12:58 PM Well the LON TMA is only shown by lighting up the whole EGTT FIR. Like I mentioned earlier, if one position were to be shown like that, than all others around the world would have to be shown as seperate FIRs too. Unless you ofcourse mean to do an update to the whole EGTT boundary...if there is a need for one? Otherwise, it's just gonna have to be shown the way it is now, as it's the only way to show something. However with the coordination and SOPs, does it really matter that much on SI itself...? The FIR boundaries are here to show general AORs, not any sub sectors or coordination points. Controllers have feelings too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sönke Schweppe Posted October 11, 2007 at 06:11 PM Posted October 11, 2007 at 06:11 PM Hello, I have a question about the _app position: ServInfo called every approach position as "... Approach". In real Egypt this position is called "Radar". Is there any chance to change this and if it is how can I do this? I found no examples for this inside the .dat flie or the FAQ. Regards Soenke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Doorgakant Posted October 11, 2007 at 06:17 PM Posted October 11, 2007 at 06:17 PM As far as I know, It's only for the CTR (En-route) positions that you can change to Control, Radar etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sönke Schweppe Posted October 11, 2007 at 06:21 PM Posted October 11, 2007 at 06:21 PM As far as I know, It's only for the CTR (En-route) positions that you can change to Control, Radar etc. That's the same I found also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carlson Posted October 11, 2007 at 06:49 PM Posted October 11, 2007 at 06:49 PM That's correct, you can only change the facility type name for Centers. Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Stjepanovic 963114 Posted October 11, 2007 at 09:48 PM Posted October 11, 2007 at 09:48 PM [EDIT]: Ross answered it already.... Controllers have feelings too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Stjepanovic 963114 Posted October 20, 2007 at 02:36 AM Posted October 20, 2007 at 02:36 AM Just a reminder that there is only over a week left till the submissions deadline. Controllers have feelings too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Pablo Simonet Nadal 9 Posted October 25, 2007 at 06:06 PM Posted October 25, 2007 at 06:06 PM Question. In Uruguay the main airport is SUMU , the problems is that the approach service, SUMU_APP, gives service into TMA carrasco that have in side sumu and other two airports suaa and suls. So for example if i am conected as sumu_app the servinfo shows only app around sumu, leaving outside the other airports. I want to know is someone can help me on how to change that in order sumu_app includes on the drawing the other two airports. Thanks a lot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Carlson Posted October 25, 2007 at 06:32 PM Posted October 25, 2007 at 06:32 PM Can't be done, Juan. Servinfo can only [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociate one airport with each approach. Developer: vPilot, VRC, vSTARS, vERAM, VAT-Spy Senior Controller, Boston Virtual ARTCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts