VIS Settings

[Andrew Rogers 913862]

I am controlling ZAK right now and I have all 4 set so I can cover all of my airspace. Yes I don't need to see them but as far as VATSIM Tracking it is the only way for me to difinitivly know who is refusing to contact me

[David Klain 874106]

Actually Dennis, in the United States I don't know of a single Center facility that gets all of its data from just one radar. Obviously things are different in other parts of the world, but the US radar coverage is a composite of many different radar sites (much like the NEXRAD radar picture).

 

Bottom line is that using software to drive what vis points and vis ranges a controller is using (based on position) is technically possible but is a huge programmng challenge. Instead we (VATSIM) ask controllers to be good caretakers of the system and not use excessive vis points or visibility ranges...as a matter of fact that is one of the things supervisors look for and (as necessary) remind controllers about.

 

Locking down the system prevents abuse, but at loss of flexibility and far greater programming complexity. It comes down to a world view of "are controllers going to do the right thing or will they always cheat/break the rules/do the wrong thing?" I believe controllers will generally do the right thing and that excessive vis points/ranges are a training/education issue vice a regulatory issue.

 

Dave

[Dennis Whitley 952478]

Andrew, what is / was your VIS range for those 4 VIS settings at ZAK? I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that you are operating in a CTR position.

 

David, the point was, and seems to be, servers crashing. This may or may not be a traffic (Target) issue, "Bandwidth Issue" It could be as in mine and Ross' conversation, an ISP bloscking issue with bandwidth shaping occuring at the ISP. (See the above post from Me and Ross.)

 

However, everyone seems to calim that having a large range, causes more traffic between servers. But as Ross has mentioned, the amount of data is tiny that is being transfered. And possibly a tiny bit more during the transition of acqusition.

 

Thus, If server crashing is occuring during peak times, then, everyone shoud limit their ranges, and VIS settings. However, is the data is so insignificant, it doesn't matter what anyone's range is set at.

 

Lets face it, in the time it took to write this post, there was more email data sent than VAT will consume in a month. There is more data in the entire VATSIM Forums than in VAT on line usage. Thus, something, or someone, isn't telling the whole truth about the issue.

 

That said, there are usually more OBS on than controllers. Throw in a few SUPS, FSS, and Admins, (using multiple 1500 mile vis sets) and I'll bet that there is more bandwidth being used, than CTR=600,APP-150, TWR=30, GND and DEL=5. ONLY if it is a bandwidth issue we're talking about. Personally, I don't think it is a bandwidth issue, unless VAT is getting charged for BW over a certain amount, then it becomes an econimical issue rather than an operational issue.

 

Software would be a good fix. The Network needs a revamp anyway. There are much better platforms and methods than the current one, and operate much more efficiently. The New guys on the block almost have it whipped, and with fewer servers, and better effiency

[Ross Carlson]

However, everyone seems to calim that having a large range, causes more traffic between servers. But as Ross has mentioned, the amount of data is tiny that is being transfered.

 

Uhm, no ... I did not say that. Position reports are easily the largest consumer of VATSIM network bandwidth, and the higher your vis range, the more targets you see, thus the more position reports must be sent to you.

[Dennis Whitley 952478]

Amount of bytes per target is ????

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

Dennis...I have to ask...why the sudden concern?

[Ross Carlson]

Dennis, grab a copy of Ethereal and take a look.

[Dennis Whitley 952478]

We have two sniffers on the network here at the plant, so we set up some tests this afternoon. We tried various VIS settings. There was no appreciable notice in "amount" of data. (Packet Transfers) We tested 1 vs 4 settings and 100 and 600 mile settings. However, if we compare the VATSIM connection to average Email and Browsing data, the VATSIM connection is negligible to other connections.

 

However, the Sandvine immediately detected the VATSIM connection as a broadcast. We engaged the Sandvine, then watched for a while. We detected some delays in AC tragets, and at times, the screen would drop targets, and, cause the targets to "jump" ! We [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume, that the router may have stored previous target data, then when the Sandvine had a break, it apparently let the VATSIm connection update, thus causing the targets to "jump"

 

Since we did not test any voice transnission, we could not come to any conclusion on that. However, after monitopring a little, we did notice a slight drop out in a few voice transmissions that we were monitoring.

 

We also found two internal connections doing a broadcast. One was ligit, the other was a Virus. There were also a few other external broadcast, we asumed them to be Limewire, or some other gaming connection. However, the VATSIm connectios was the least amount of packet transfers that we noticed other than a few short burst of something hanging out there. And yes, we looked in and out of band

[Harold Rutila 974112]

[Keith Smith]

Dennis,

 

If you plan on contributing to VATSIM (ie, other than observing and monitoring the comms of a bunch of controllers), you'll find that your 'suggestions for improvement' earlier in the thread might be met with a warmer reception. As it is though, this is likely to perceived as yet another negative addition to the long stream of "what we're doing wrong" messages that you're rapidly becoming [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ociated with.

 

As much as I try to separate the content of the message from the person delivering the message, it's becoming harder and harder to do so because of the overwhelming feeling I'm getting that you're not TRULY interested in helping or improving this network. If that were the case, you'd actually be working a position more often, or flying. What I suspect is actually happening, though, is that you're simply looking to rock the boat and find flaws in the network which you once enjoyed being apart of, but now, no longer welcomes you.

 

I don't have a personal stake in this, and am not really privvy to what went on originally, but for the sake of morale around here, it would be a huge relief if you'd either make peace with whoever you were involved with, and get a fresh start on the network, or simply move on and find something else. The path you're heading down right now is unlikely to bring you any pleasure, and I'm positive it's making a number of ppl here miserable.

[Dennis Whitley 952478]

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

And secondly, I thought Oceanic (to be realistic) would not use RADAR coverage.

 

It's not about the radar coverage in itself. It's probably better not to say "Radar Coverage" in meaning visibility range. If your visibility range is too limited, you won't be able to view a flight strip of any aircraft outside your range. In the case of Oceanic, the only way to get the flight strip is to also accept the radar usage. There are ways around seeing the aircraft tags, though, if you set up color profiles to blend them in with the background (if you're really trying to simulate a non-radar environment).

 

This has been one of the suggestions in the past, and there's not really a huge need for it, is to develop ATC clients so that flight data can be received, whilst being able to disable Radar itself, or actually hiding transponders on standby, etc. But again, one of the simpler solutions (especially since this is not a hugely necessary feature) is just to change the colors of the client.

[Dennis Whitley 952478]

Steve, my point was why anyone would need 4 600 mile vis Centers.

 

Example, why would Kingston CTR need 4 - 600 mile VIS settings? They only control a small area and aren't supposed to see traffic on the gruond in Miami.

Why does LAX oceanic need to stretch across the Pacific? Why does Miamia need a large view? ETC ETC ETC

 

Granted, there are a "FEW" geographical reasons.

 

If network bandwidth "IS" an issue, (And no one has proven it yet) then most controllers (with exception of a few), do not need to hog up bandwidth.

 

BUT---Only if it is a real problem. But no one seems to really know !

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

Example, why would Kingston CTR need 4 - 600 mile VIS settings? They only control a small area and aren't supposed to see traffic on the gruond in Miami.

 

He wouldn't, and thusly he would use one visibility center with a range limited to within about 50-100 miles of his farthest boundaries. If his longest boundary is 220 NMs out ([Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming no strange airspace shape)...then I wouldn't expect him to have a range of more than 300 NM.

 

It's simply an option to have for any possible control location in the world should they need it. Perhaps, although unlikely now that Euroscope is out, someplace in China or Russia controls a giant area of airspace. I don't know. We can't poll every location and ask them to submit a report on what their visibility needs are.

 

Oakland Oceanic needs a large view to be able to pick up the flight strips of any traffic that might enter his control area. Sure he might not always have traffic at any given moment, but at any given moment he might have traffic. One of the axioms of VATSIM, and large airspace or small, all that's asked is that controllers are responsible of the range that they need to cover their allotted control zone. Some are large, some are small. I don't know what the largest airspace necessity in the world is, and so I would say allowing four points permits for even the largest ones.

 

If network bandwidth "IS" an issue, (And no one has proven it yet) then most controllers (with exception of a few), do not need to hog up bandwidth.

 

BUT---Only if it is a real problem. But no one seems to really know !

 

Bandwidth issue or not, a controller shouldn't be using up extra visibility he doesn't need. 4 visibility points allows flexibility, that's all. If someone is abusing it, obviously, and someone notices, it can be dealt with.

 

Are you noticing that people are abusing visibility points? Are you noticing that people are abusing ranges? If yes, then report them or call a supervisor, or even just send a polite PM asking them to cut back. If no, then what's the hubbub, bub? You're right, if it's a bandwidth issue, then most controllers need to keep this in check. But we all already know this and try to keep everyone courteous to the fact. Just because VRC allows four points doesn't mean that everyone is out there multi-pointing 600 NM.

 

And if it's not actually a bandwidth issue, well it's all academic and simply a housekeeping situation (keeping controllers tidy with proper ranges).

 

In any case, I'm going for a Coke right about now.

[Ross Carlson]

If your visibility range is too limited, you won't be able to view a flight strip of any aircraft outside your range. In the case of Oceanic, the only way to get the flight strip is to also accept the radar usage.

 

I'm not sure what you mean here ... you can view flight strips for aircraft outside your range.

[Nicholas Bartolotta 912967]

If your visibility range is too limited, you won't be able to view a flight strip of any aircraft outside your range. In the case of Oceanic, the only way to get the flight strip is to also accept the radar usage.

 

I'm not sure what you mean here ... you can view flight strips for aircraft outside your range.

 

You can view them if you manually pull them up for the callsign - I think what Steve meant was they will not automatically appear in your flight strip bay or aircraft list unless they are within your range (and the settings are setup right).

[Kevin Henderson 976708]

Anchorage air space is roughly 1200 miles by 1600 miles. I usually utilize 4 vis centers at 600 miles to cover it all. If I don't I have holes in the airspace and have a really hard time seeing some pilots and coordinating with surrounding centers.

[Tim Krajcar]

Am I the only one wondering what the point of this thread is?

[Dan Everette]

Am I the only one wondering what the point of this thread is?

 

I like cookies.

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

I'm not sure what you mean here ... you can view flight strips for aircraft outside your range.

 

Well, may be an oops my my part and I need to be edge-ih-mi-cay-ted,

 

When I used to control, VRC, ASRC, or otherwise...if there was any aircraft outside my visibility range (say it's locked at 100 NM, so more than 100NM from my center point), I could not tag him up for radio-selection, view his flight strip, anything like that. I can still PM him, but I can't do anything else with his data. And so what I was thinking was that...for an Oceanic Sector, as opposed to needing the "Radar" portion of the "Visibility Range" they need the functionality of being able to pull up the flight strips and/or radio-select aircraft.

 

Is this different now, or was I actually completely mistaken?

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

I like cookies.

 

Snickerdoodles. And Coke. Gotta have Coke.

[David Baker 1004102]

While it's certainly not as easy to do as it is if they are on your scope, it is possible (in VRC at least).

 

You must know the full actual callsign.

 

.strip AAL1234 will add it to your strip bay

 

.SS (or F6) AAL1234 will pull up the strip editor.

[Steve Ogrodowski 876322]

While it's certainly not as easy to do as it is if they are on your scope, it is possible (in VRC at least).

 

You must know the full actual callsign.

 

.strip AAL1234 will add it to your strip bay

 

.SS (or F6) AAL1234 will pull up the strip editor.

 

Ding for the winner, I'll take "Completely Mistaken" for $2,000!

 

That clears it up then.

[Paul Byrne]

Am I the only one wondering what the point of this thread is?

 

I dunno. Maybe to give a spoilt child some attention he craves.

 

Come on VATSIM, I'm still waiting for the "Ignore user" function. Either that or just ban him. Dennis no longer has a useful purpose on these forums.

 

Cheers!

Paul.

[Dennis Whitley 952478]

You don't need a vis setting to list or modify a strip. You can get any strip you want from anywhere in the world whether you can see him on RADAR or not. Type .strip and the call sign.

 

Just as in the real world "Oceanic" you can't see them on RADAR. They call you on HF, and give you their new routing, etc. You make a notation, then put the strip back in the rack. They will need to make a position report every so often so you can track them.

 

In reality, (using a PHNL - KSOF flight) once he leaves HNL, he can only be seen on RADAR for maybe 250 miles. SFO Can't see him until he gets within about 250 miles. So, what is the purpose of covering SFO to HNL on RADAR with 4 - 600 mile VIS Centers, if you are trying to play the game for reality?

 

Same for any geographical location. In reality, Atlanta Center most likely won't see a Cessna 182 near the border down at 4000 ft. Same for the Carribean. Most all flight, especially non pressurized flights at lower altitudes, ALL make position reports, and estimates of the next point. Because there is no or limited RADAR coverage.

 

I don't get it !