By Andy Ford 1203533
#516866
Kieran Samuel Cross 1298134 wrote:
Mats Edvin Aaro 1227980 wrote:Realistically, if they can't handle manual squawk code allocation, then there's something that needs addressing with the controller training.


Fine for TWR and some APP positions, but for busy area sectors covering 4/5 airports at least, much harder when it gets busy (London can peak at 30+ pilots on a single small sector in some cases).
By Jonas Kuster 1158939
#516871
Andy Ford 1203533 wrote:Fine for TWR and some APP positions, but for busy area sectors covering 4/5 airports at least, much harder when it gets busy (London can peak at 30+ pilots on a single small sector in some cases).
So do we. But it can be managed, trust me. Assigning squawk is one of the easier tasks. It only depends on proper sector files. Assign a range big enough to London control, and it won't be a problem. You probably underestimate the features of ES as you are used to the simple-to-use way.
By Craig Phillips 947617
#516872 This has been brought to my attension again and I am looking into this as a priority. Unfortunately, it is not an issue I can resolve myself in VCA, the bug stems from the VATSIM servers/protocol itself. I have tried various different ways to fix/workaround the issue, but it is impossible without changing the VATSIM protocol or Euroscope itself.

I shall post here of any further developments.

Kind Regards

Craig Phillips
(Developer of VCA)
By Jonas Kuster 1158939
#516874 That's no excuse. Somehow, it worked a few years back. There might have been changes. But you can't expect the network or client to change the way you like it. The plugin is at the lowest design hierarchy, so you have to cope with the conditions. If you can't, deactivate those services until you fixed it!
I find this hard to believe anyway. There were similar issues when a mode S plugin was introduced setting squawk 1000 all over. But it was fixed within a few weeks. And as I understand, your plugin is even working with a server where assignments could be cross checked. However it's not done. Did you ask for support regarding squawk assignment from Pierre?

To conclude: I seems you are not really interested in a solution acceptable for both VCA users and such controllers which are not using this plugin. You are just waiting the network or client to fullfil your requirements. This won't bring us a solution. It's up to you, Craig, to fix the mess you are causing!

It's really a shame one person can cause such negative network experience to so many other members.
By Craig Phillips 947617
#516875
Jonas Kuster 1158939 wrote:That's no excuse. Somehow, it worked a few years back. There might have been changes. But you can't expect the network or client to change the way you like it. The plugin is at the lowest design hierarchy, so you have to cope with the conditions. If you can't, deactivate those services until you fixed it!
I find this hard to believe anyway. There were similar issues when a mode S plugin was introduced setting squawk 1000 all over. But it was fixed within a few weeks. And as I understand, your plugin is even working with a server where assignments could be cross checked. However it's not done. Did you ask for support regarding squawk assignment from Pierre?

To conclude: I seems you are not really interested in a solution acceptable for both VCA users and such controllers which are not using this plugin. You are just waiting the network or client to fullfil your requirements. This won't bring us a solution. It's up to you, Craig, to fix the mess you are causing!

It's really a shame one person can cause such negative network experience to so many other members.


That's very harsh, considering I code the plugin in my own free time... I don't get paid for it. I'm guessing you're the guy who's .walloping everyone for using VCA that is now a topic in the UK forums?

I have provided many fixes in attempt to fix the issue, but have failed. The issue is/was not caused by myself as you state it was working sometime before. Nothing was changed in VCA to cause the problem, therefore it SHOULDNT be my responsibility to fix it!

The question remains... why does Euroscope or the VATSIM protocol allow the squawk code of an aircraft to be changed when the controller cannot see the aircraft? This was not the case a few years back... why has it changed?

I have tested that a controller in the UK is able to change the squawk code for an aircraft in Australia successfully, which should NOT be able to happen... That is a failure of the VATSIM protocol, NOT VCA.

I have released a work-around this evening that ensures that aircraft is visible when resetting the squawk code. Various Euroscope APIs failed to determine the visiblility of an aircraft successfully... I have had to write my OWN method to determine the visibility.

PLEASE DO NOT UNDERMINE ANYBODY WHO CONTRIBUTES TO THE COMMUNITY IN THEIR OWN FREE TIME. I am really quite offended by that...

Calum Towers 1258635 wrote:The easiest way of doing so is providing a suitable replacement which is currently in development.

If that is the case, I don't see that it is open source... which goes against the grain a bit. One rule for one, another rule for another one?

Kind Regards

Craig
Last edited by Craig Phillips 947617 on Tue Aug 15, 2017 9:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
By Kieran Samuel Cross 1298134
#516877
Craig Phillips 947617 wrote:
Calum Towers 1258635 wrote:The easiest way of doing so is providing a suitable replacement which is currently in development.

If that is the case, I don't see that it is open source... which goes against the grain a bit. One rule for one, another rule for another one?


Being in development, doesn't necessarily mean that they've got code for it, which roughly works and is ready to share. Personally, just like many developers, and probably you, I don't release my in-development code, until I'm happy that it's at least a base from what I can expand from. Presumably, that's exactly what the VATSIM-UK team are doing.

Remember, try not to get salty over them pulling your plugin from their controller packs.
By Oliver Rhodes 1277914
#516881 I know it's only a part of UK traffic, but to answer for Heathrow: in consultation with our Training Director, we've put 'announcements' on all of the Heathrow Moodle courses (which are given to controllers training for their 'major airport' endorsement for Heathrow) asking members to avoid using VCA where possible, and sent an email to all of the Heathrow mentors asking them to request that their students do so.

I should clarify, however, that this is not a ban. We don't have (and wouldn't want) that power. Rather, it is an attempt to ensure that Heathrow controllers are aware of the issues that the plugin can - in its present state - cause for other controllers, in the hope that it can go some way towards alleviating the issue.

All of this, of course, is pending an update to VCA to fix the issue; in my view it is a fantastic and invaluable plugin, so I look forward to being able to use it once again!

Thanks,
By Craig Phillips 947617
#516882
Oliver Rhodes 1277914 wrote:All of this, of course, is pending an update to VCA to fix the issue; in my view it is a fantastic and invaluable plugin, so I look forward to being able to use it once again!

An update has been released this evening... :)
By Luke Brown 1116943
#516901 Yeah, if you do encounter the bug again, please check that the controller is using the latest build. I've controlled with the latest build this morning and it seems it is fixed. I couldn't assign a squawk/altitude unless I was tracking the aircraft.
By Kieran Samuel Cross 1298134
#516903
Luke Brown 1116943 wrote:Yeah, if you do encounter the bug again, please check that the controller is using the latest build. I've controlled with the latest build this morning and it seems it is fixed. I couldn't assign a squawk/altitude unless I was tracking the aircraft.


So the bug was fixed, without needing to have the VATSIM network protocol changed?
By Craig Phillips 947617
#516905
Kieran Samuel Cross 1298134 wrote:
Luke Brown 1116943 wrote:Yeah, if you do encounter the bug again, please check that the controller is using the latest build. I've controlled with the latest build this morning and it seems it is fixed. I couldn't assign a squawk/altitude unless I was tracking the aircraft.


So the bug was fixed, without needing to have the VATSIM network protocol changed?

No... it's yet another attempt to workaround it without needing to have the VATSIM network protocol changed...
By Pierre Ferran 1259058
#516932
Jonas Kuster 1158939 wrote:That's no excuse. Somehow, it worked a few years back. There might have been changes. But you can't expect the network or client to change the way you like it. The plugin is at the lowest design hierarchy, so you have to cope with the conditions. If you can't, deactivate those services until you fixed it!
I find this hard to believe anyway. There were similar issues when a mode S plugin was introduced setting squawk 1000 all over. But it was fixed within a few weeks. And as I understand, your plugin is even working with a server where assignments could be cross checked. However it's not done. Did you ask for support regarding squawk assignment from Pierre?

To conclude: I seems you are not really interested in a solution acceptable for both VCA users and such controllers which are not using this plugin. You are just waiting the network or client to fullfil your requirements. This won't bring us a solution. It's up to you, Craig, to fix the mess you are causing!

It's really a shame one person can cause such negative network experience to so many other members.


I have to agree with Jonas here, Craig, "doing it on your free time" does not excuse you from any form of responsibility, and your plugin has been causing a nuisance for as long as I've been controlling, yet I've seen little effort on your part to help. When my plugin kept assigning squawks all over the place, it was a shame for me, and I tried to react as fast as I can to fix the problem. By creating a plugin, your know you are making something that's unmanaged, on a broken protocol using a broken api of a wobbly controller client, you must do as much as you can to prevent problems.

I'm not blaming you for making a mistake using an api you thought would work, far from that, but I did see a very very slow response from you to try and stop the problem, and instead of pulling off the plugin while it was causing problems, you left it there with the excuse that the UK controller community keeps saying "it takes too much time to assign squawks". Which in the end is really a false excuse, we should all be using the range system EuroScope has, because we can't assign realistic squawks until we have a global or at least regional squawk assignment system. Moreover we don't need a realistic squawk assignment system, our traffic density and complexity does not require it, mode A codes are even disappearing in real life with mode S!
By Magnus Meese 997444
#516953
Craig Phillips 947617 wrote:That's very harsh, considering I code the plugin in my own free time... I don't get paid for it. I'm guessing you're the guy who's .walloping everyone for using VCA that is now a topic in the UK forums?

I have provided many fixes in attempt to fix the issue, but have failed. The issue is/was not caused by myself as you state it was working sometime before. Nothing was changed in VCA to cause the problem, therefore it SHOULDNT be my responsibility to fix it!

The question remains... why does Euroscope or the VATSIM protocol allow the squawk code of an aircraft to be changed when the controller cannot see the aircraft? This was not the case a few years back... why has it changed?

I have tested that a controller in the UK is able to change the squawk code for an aircraft in Australia successfully, which should NOT be able to happen... That is a failure of the VATSIM protocol, NOT VCA.

I have released a work-around this evening that ensures that aircraft is visible when resetting the squawk code. Various Euroscope APIs failed to determine the visiblility of an aircraft successfully... I have had to write my OWN method to determine the visibility.

PLEASE DO NOT UNDERMINE ANYBODY WHO CONTRIBUTES TO THE COMMUNITY IN THEIR OWN FREE TIME. I am really quite offended by that...
It's not harsh, it's frank. Your plugin has negatively impacted my online experience for a long time, it does not help that it's done for free. The fact that you also seem aggrevated that someone would want to .wallop something that messes with their controller software over the servers does not soften the annoyance. You wouldn't be very appreciative if someone painted your house per your specifications for free but then drew a giant something-in-particular on one of your walls. You would not be much happier afterwards when this person told you that he did you that service for free and that he finds your attack on his artistery offensive. "Oh, calling the police? That's rich, I'll have you know we've opend a forum thread discussing the likes of you!"

Hasn't server wide FPs always been available through flightplan dialogues in various clients? Just like you can PM anyone outside your visrange? I might be mistaken, but I seem to recall as such.