News and Forum Instructions
By Robert Shearman Jr 1155655
#537167
Alex Findlay 1463853 wrote:Where is the download?????? I see a lot of discusison about it but ca't find the actual new software..Maybe put a ink to it in the announcements?

Check this very thread's first post

https://imgur.com/khgrpxb
By Alex Findlay 1463853
#537172 Thanks , yes, I've just found it. It's the two slightly different coloured words right at the beginning of the post announcing the launch. Perhaps it might be helpful to highlight the fact that this is the download link?

Looking forward to trying it.
By Daniel Mckee 965838
#537649 Just like to congratulate the development team on a job well done. My VFR group and My Compass VA group are having no problems using AFV on XSB. The only thing we would like in due course is a bit more range for CTAF's and Unicom. Thanks again for all your contribution. :D :D
By Ivan Duris 1047663
#537656 Hello,

from documentation is clear that CTAFs freq can be used in future after some time, only UNICOM can be used this time. In other side, I can't really imagine why more distance for this service is needed because 15nm is enough distance in my opinion. Pls be kind describe reason of need set higher value, maybe example, idea.

OM-ICO
By Tim Simpson 1339557
#537667 I agree with Daniel, that the range should be extended. In the real world, UNICOM can be heard, with frequency overlap for about 50 miles or more, depending on altitude. Ideally the range should be increased dramatically, and the introduction of CTAF's should be expedited as well.
By Simon Kelsey 810049
#537686
Tim Simpson 1339557 wrote:I agree with Daniel, that the range should be extended. In the real world, UNICOM can be heard, with frequency overlap for about 50 miles or more, depending on altitude. Ideally the range should be increased dramatically, and the introduction of CTAF's should be expedited as well.


The difference with the real world is that:

- The real world doesn't have a single global frequency for this function
- The real world isn't trying to use that single frequency for all movements in and out of major airfields as well as the much smaller, quieter airfields
- The real world isn't using/monitoring that frequency at altitudes where total reception range spans half a continent.
- Real world pilots are trained and legally required to have up-to-date frequency information on board and accessible

The range of 122.800 is effectively 30nm -- 15nm for you, and 15nm for the other pilot, so on the basis of the AFV ranging algorithm if you are 30nm apart you will hear each other. For a service intended for use at low altitudes in the terminal area only that should be more than enough for its intended purpose of collision avoidance and coordination: 30nm equates to flying time measured in minutes rather than seconds, and if it takes 5+ minutes to initiate avoiding action then I'm not sure any range increase is going to have an effect!

For some context, in the UK, Safetycom -- our rough equivalent -- usage is supposed to be limited to within 10nm of the landing site and 2000ft AAL to try and ensure that transmissions are relevant and if you frequent UK general aviation forums you will find a lot of people with major issues about the amount of irrelevant operational comms, not to mention the frequent misuse of the frequency for general chat (sound familar?)!

The options, therefore are:

1) Have a totally realistic (in terms of range) 122.800 that nobody ever uses because 99% of the chatter is irrelevant to them. To give some context -- in another topic, someone talked about wanting to be able to co-ordinate with other traffic whilst they were in the descent at FL150.

Those transmissions would be received by everybody within roughly a 170nm radius on the ground, and anybody airborne would be hearing that stuff up to 430nm away!

Now multiply that transmission by all the other transmissions from other aircraft within that radius, and tell me if you that that is likely to be a useful frequency...

2) Remove the artificial 122.800 range limitation and use discrete frequencies from day 1 and, if you're lucky, someone else might even be tuned to the same frequency as you if they have the right charts and they know how it works and, for somewhere like Heathrow which doesn't normally have a designated 'CTAF' frequency, plucked the right one out of the air.

I mean, neither really sounds particularly useful, does it?

The 15 (as I say, really 30) NM restriction was chosen to make the Unicom system, at least for now, actually relevant, useful and usable as opposed to unmitigated chaos.

I'm all for transitioning to discrete frequencies, but for that to happen there needs to be a global, univerally and easily-accessible, VATSIM-specific, single source of truth as to which frequency to use at any given airfield, otherwise your CTAF is going to be worse than useless. I believe this is what some people are working on in the background in order to make it possible... still, I'm sure when we do get there we won't be seeing pages of rants from people complaining that they got run in to by somebody who wasn't on the right frequency :lol:

Note that it is only 122.800 that has the range restriction applied. All other frequencies just work like a normal VHF radio with normal realistic ranging :)
By Jobson Souza 1314199
#537741 That was amazing. The immersion that will provide just step up a level.

Congrats! Great job well done.

About xPilot, how do I ask / suggest function? Do you know Swift PPT sound when we press the button? It's big! Maybe xPilot brings this in some new version.

Thanks!!!!
By Tim Simpson 1339557
#537744 @simon

I vote for option two. We already expect ATC and pilots to use current charts/procedures/frequencies for flight when ATC is online. Why not extend that to when the airspace is uncontrolled? I think people are smart enough to figure it out. Heck they figure out the crazy departures and arrivals in Europe, pulling a frequency should be simple, right? LOL.

I see your point about simplicity, but it seems at odds with most peoples expectations of simulating real world operations.
By Josh Jenk 1383451
#537746
Tim Simpson 1339557 wrote:@simon

I vote for option two. We already expect ATC and pilots to use current charts/procedures/frequencies for flight when ATC is online. Why not extend that to when the airspace is uncontrolled? I think people are smart enough to figure it out. Heck they figure out the crazy departures and arrivals in Europe, pulling a frequency should be simple, right? LOL.

I see your point about simplicity, but it seems at odds with most peoples expectations of simulating real world operations.


I honestly would like to see this eventually as well, but let's make sure everyone is comfortable with the current transition first, shall we? I'm sure you can imagine the chaos if this was introduced right now. Training requirements for pilots would also need to be upgraded to pull this off successfully.
By Gary Oliver 811521
#537856 Using real charts is all well and good and I would totally agree to use the real frequencies is sensible.

However we do have a problem with that... Only about 20% of our clients support 8.33 spacing. The charts will specify 8.33 frequencies which cannot be tuned!

Therefore we need a global database of the VATSIM equivalent of these frequencies, and the problem starts growing.

Imagine trying to transition everyone to discrete CTAF at the same time as AFV is rolled out, we are all maxed out supporting that at the moment.

Give it 6 months for things to settle down and we can go through that process as a community then. We made the decision to make a single change at a time. Keep things simple.

Cheers
Gary AFV Lead