Air Traffic Controller Discussion With a Global Perspective
By Ross Carlson 887155
#315217
Charan Kumar 1078107 wrote:If more pilots with higher range are querying the server, then doesn't it use more bandwidth?


Pilots don't query the server. The server simply sends data for all aircraft within range. That range is determined by the server, not by the pilot software. (Unlike controller software, which allows the user to vary the range at which they see aircraft.)

Charan Kumar 1078107 wrote:I agree with Ernesto that you cannot see the plane, actually FS9 only shows 10 miles and FSX will show it a little farther out, but FSInn Rad shows upto 120 miles, just the data. :?: :?:


FS9 will show you aircraft further out than 10 miles, as long as your pilot software is adding them to the multiplayer session. What you're thinking of is the label. FS9 switches off the aircraft label at 10 miles. The actual plane model is still there, though, as long as it's still in the multiplayer session.
By Ross Carlson 887155
#315223
Brendan Samson 1070087 wrote:Ross,
This is a little off topic, but do you know how the range of other pilots you can "hear" on unicom is determined?


That's based on "radio range", which is a function of altitude. It has a minimum, which is something like 50 NM, but as you get more altitude, you can hear text transmissions further away.
By Brendan Samson 1070087
#315225
Ross Carlson 887155 wrote:
Brendan Samson 1070087 wrote:Ross,
This is a little off topic, but do you know how the range of other pilots you can "hear" on unicom is determined?


That's based on "radio range", which is a function of altitude. It has a minimum, which is something like 50 NM, but as you get more altitude, you can hear text transmissions further away.


Cool thanks.
By Jonas Eberle 1068951
#316884 Maybe this should be looked at by the server admins:

I use FSNavigator on FS9 which allows to connect to the FSInn-Multiplayer Session. You see all planes around you with callsign,speed,altitude.

I normally use an FSInn visibility range of 18nm - obvious that FSNavigator shows planes in this diameter.
When I pull up FSInn multiplayer range to 150nm - FSNavigator shows planes 150nm around me, with ~1 update/second !

My conclusion:
Either
* Pilot clients are ALWAYS receiving pilot's updates in a wide range
or
* Range setting in FSInn matters
By Ross Carlson 887155
#316889
Jonas Eberle 1068951 wrote:Maybe this should be looked at by the server admins:

I use FSNavigator on FS9 which allows to connect to the FSInn-Multiplayer Session. You see all planes around you with callsign,speed,altitude.

I normally use an FSInn visibility range of 18nm - obvious that FSNavigator shows planes in this diameter.
When I pull up FSInn multiplayer range to 150nm - FSNavigator shows planes 150nm around me, with ~1 update/second !

My conclusion:
Either
* Pilot clients are ALWAYS receiving pilot's updates in a wide range
or
* Range setting in FSInn matters


It is the former. The server is always sending you data for planes as much as 150nm out. The range setting in FSInn just determines which of those are added to the MP session, and thus which ones will appear on FSNav. The reason you are seeing fast updates in FSNav is because FSInn interpolates the positions between the 5 second updates it gets from the server, so that the movement appears smooth on screen.

Were you definitely seeing planes at 150 miles out? I didn't think the pilot vis range was set that high in the server. Been a while since I looked at the code, though.

Edit: Just looked at the code, and it appears that pilot visibility range is limited to 100nm.
By Jonas Eberle 1068951
#317042 Thanks, that clarifies it. But as to visibility ranges vs. network bandwidth discussion, pilots (clients) should be taken into consideration because of the 1:7 ratio I was talking about before.

One TWR controller with a range of 100NM is not nice, but has as little effect as one plane more or less.



Ross Carlson 887155 wrote:
Jonas Eberle 1068951 wrote:Maybe this should be looked at by the server admins:

I use FSNavigator on FS9 which allows to connect to the FSInn-Multiplayer Session. You see all planes around you with callsign,speed,altitude.

I normally use an FSInn visibility range of 18nm - obvious that FSNavigator shows planes in this diameter.
When I pull up FSInn multiplayer range to 150nm - FSNavigator shows planes 150nm around me, with ~1 update/second !

My conclusion:
Either
* Pilot clients are ALWAYS receiving pilot's updates in a wide range
or
* Range setting in FSInn matters


It is the former. The server is always sending you data for planes as much as 150nm out. The range setting in FSInn just determines which of those are added to the MP session, and thus which ones will appear on FSNav. The reason you are seeing fast updates in FSNav is because FSInn interpolates the positions between the 5 second updates it gets from the server, so that the movement appears smooth on screen.

Were you definitely seeing planes at 150 miles out? I didn't think the pilot vis range was set that high in the server. Been a while since I looked at the code, though.

Edit: Just looked at the code, and it appears that pilot visibility range is limited to 100nm.
By Ross Carlson 887155
#317047
Jonas Eberle 1068951 wrote:Thanks, that clarifies it. But as to visibility ranges vs. network bandwidth discussion, pilots (clients) should be taken into consideration because of the 1:7 ratio I was talking about before.


They certainly are, but since there is nothing that users can do to change the bandwidth consumption of a pilot client, it's a different discussion than the issue of vis range for controllers. It's more a topic for the developers of the network protocol.

Jonas Eberle 1068951 wrote:One TWR controller with a range of 100NM is not nice, but has as little effect as one plane more or less.


Certainly true, but that doesn't mean a TWR controller should use 100 NM. If he can do his job with a range of 50nm, then that's a bandwidth savings.

Also keep in mind that not all pilots have a range of 100 NM. It's based on altitude. Aircraft on the ground have a much shorter range. (As low as 10 NM.)
By Scott DeWoody 1003218
#343062 What gets me is why this topic has to go as far as 6 or more pages. Unless one is financially supporting VATSIM, it means that they are enjoying this great hobby (game,simulator, sport.. whatever you want to call it) for NO charge, ....FREE. So when one of the people that IS financially supporting it says "Hey, help us out here and please keep your vis range down to what you absolutely need to do your vJOB and save some bandwith (cost)". We as controllers should collectively say "Sure no problem, and thanks a million for providing this service to us"

It's kinda like your boss, or parents telling you, "Please keep the door closed, the heat/ac is on" because you aren't paying for it, they are.


My .02
By Luke Kolin 837789
#354367
Scott Dewoody 1003218 wrote:What gets me is why this topic has to go as far as 6 or more pages. Unless one is financially supporting VATSIM, it means that they are enjoying this great hobby (game,simulator, sport.. whatever you want to call it) for NO charge, ....FREE. So when one of the people that IS financially supporting it says "Hey, help us out here and please keep your vis range down to what you absolutely need to do your vJOB and save some bandwith (cost)". We as controllers should collectively say "Sure no problem, and thanks a million for providing this service to us"


The problem is that this attitude makes no allowances as to whether the people who are financially supporting VATSIM are reasonable in their requests.

Cheers!

Luke
By Roland Collins 800023
#358700
Luke Kolin 837789 wrote:
Scott Dewoody 1003218 wrote:What gets me is why this topic has to go as far as 6 or more pages. Unless one is financially supporting VATSIM, it means that they are enjoying this great hobby (game,simulator, sport.. whatever you want to call it) for NO charge, ....FREE. So when one of the people that IS financially supporting it says "Hey, help us out here and please keep your vis range down to what you absolutely need to do your vJOB and save some bandwith (cost)". We as controllers should collectively say "Sure no problem, and thanks a million for providing this service to us"
The problem is that this attitude makes no allowances as to whether the people who are financially supporting VATSIM are reasonable in their requests.

Cheers!
Luke

If the requirement in relation to visibility range is considered unreasonable then the proper protocol is to put forward a case for having it changed. I have yet so see how asking users to use only what they NEED is being unreasonable or represents a flawed attitude. Perhaps I missed something somewhere?

Roland Collins
VATSIM co-Founder
VATSIM VP Regions
By Kyle Ramsey 810181
#358777
Luke Kolin 837789 wrote:
The problem is that this attitude makes no allowances as to whether the people who are financially supporting VATSIM are reasonable in their requests.

Cheers!

Luke


Who gets to be the arbitrator of reasonablness? Usually the owner of subject property. While others may have an opinion about someone else's property and how it should be used, in the end the owner gets to decide. I own a 1970 Ford F100 Pickup my youngest son would love to drive, but I don't let anyone but myself drive it; am I unreasonable? Does he really get a vote on how my truck gets used or driven? (No, he doesn't). Does it matter the reasons I won't let others drive my pickup? Not really, its mine and I can allow or not allow whomever I wish to drive it. Does my son think me unreasonable? You bet, but his motives are self serving and have little to do with my wishes for my truck.

My mother used to tell me I could take as much on my plate as I needed but to not be wasteful and take more than I needed or could eat. As Roland says, the viz range issue is exacly the same. Take as much as you need but not more than you need. If you think the current paradigm is incorrect, submit to your local ATM/DD reasons why it should be expanded and if you are correct it likely will get expanded.
By Luke Kolin 837789
#358796 Holy thread ressurrection Batman! Must be a slow day on the BoG. :)

We could have an interesting discussion over the long-term strategic benefits of not sweating the small stuff, the decreasing cost of bandwidth and strategic leaders versus myopic small proprietors, but I think we've had it before and I don't want to waste the precious bandwidth. It would consume far more than a few overly large visibility ranges, to no effect.

Despicably yours,
Luke
By Darrol Larrok 1140797
#358801 Aren't VATSIM's members part of, and a critically important resource to, VATSIM. It seems quite inappropriate to describe the people comprising VATSIM and the people running VATSIM as in a hierarchial relationship or a lender-borrower/parent-child relationship. The technological resources comprising VATSIM are quite ordinary in this day and age. The thing that makes VATSIM valuable are it's people.