Nicholas G - 1397820
-
Posts
368 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Nicholas G - 1397820
-
-
2 hours ago, Steven Brown said:
FSINN has been able to do this 10 years ago. I used to do it with the Compass guys a while ago and worked really well.
Yes, but probably not in Xplane 11
-
1
-
-
Daniel, I think I did the model matching through swiftData rather than the launcher precisely for that reason. Not that the Data interface is that much more intuitive, but it is at least a little more transparent about what it's doing.
If you open up swiftdata, you should see all the aircraft for which you have acf files in your sim under "Own models xplane" (assuming you've done enough of the swift launcher Wizard for the app to know where all your sim directories are). I'm basically just using the bluebell CSLs at the moment. If you've got other csl or compatible models, you can add those too, but easiest way to add the bluebells ( asuming they're already somewhere in you Xplane dir, if not you'll need to move them there or a subdir) is to click "Own models Xplane", hit Ctrl + F and put "BB" in the distributor field. That should just bring up the bluebell files, hit Ctrl A and then Alt +A. That should move them all to your model set for xplane. Then just click again on the "Model Set Xplane" tab, then go down to the bottom right and click 'save Xplane'. Start Xplane and swift.
That should get you a usable model set for most things. Specific GA models you'll have to add manually, and they'll need to be in the right format. Swift does validate model matching on startup, so if you have any issues with a non compatible model it should tell you. -
I for one am enjoying it in X-Plane. Having discrete tabs for text chat is nice again (as opposed to using dot commands or hotkeys for last message), and being able to voice on Com1 and text on Com2 at the same time is a boon for Class G IFR ( I think voice on both comms is in development). Also, having other user aircraft appear on the ground instead of floating in midair is a plus, as is clearer audio than XSB. Also, the ability to override voicerooms means we can use Swift for CTAF operations in the same way we do with AVC or FSINN, but with slightly newer software ;). Losing the ability to do text based stuff in sim (so, going back to being like vPilot) is a small hit I'm willing to take.
Just watch building your model sets. If you include models that don't validate, it seems to break the Swift plugin in Xplane resulting in constant disconnects and reconnects. Other than that, it's pretty stable and usable, and I'm pretty happy to use this as my daily driver client for the moment. -
54 minutes ago, Sean Harrison said:
I have only just seen this post.
Nick does para three mean that we can exceed 250 when on a SID or STAR?
i am a little lost as to why there are so many 250kt restrictions below 10K. Is there a situation we can exceed 250kts below 10K?
Imagine there are two kinds of scenario you can be in. On a SID/STAR, or not on a SID/STAR. What applies to one of these categories says nothing about what may apply to the other. They are two distinct scenarios with distinct requirements.
If you are on a SID/STAR, you will almost always see on the published chart a 250/10K restriction, as Nick already indicated above. You must abide by that unless it is cancelled by "cancel published speed restrictions" or "cancel speed restrictions," at which point you can do what you like. You are still on a SID/STAR, you have just had the speed restrictions cancelled. As Nick indicates with the xample from ERSA above, the ATC traffic management speeds in ERSA do not apply if on a SID/STAR.
If you are NOT on a SID/STAR, there MAY be an ATC Traffic Management Speed like Nick's para 3 for your aerodrome in ERSA. All aerodromes with class C CTRs have this, but many other aerodromes don't, including some aerodromes with class C approach airspace below 10k feet. ATC traffic management speeds are NOT airspace class dependent, they are aerodrome dependent. The idea is that you are supposed to check in ERSA case by case. If there is such a speed, you must abide by it unless canceled by ATC, such as through "no speed restrictions." I'll admit I am not sure if "No ATC Speed Restrictions" cancells any restriction in ERSA, but I think it might, otherwise there is no difference between that and "resume normal speed."
There are also airspace speed limitations in the AIP that are restrictions that apply to all airspace of each kind (so, there are class G, class E, class C, restrictions, etc, for IFR and for VFR), but for ninety percent of VATPAC traffic where this would be an issue (IFR in Class C), there is no airspace speed limitation, so you only have to consider the other 2 examples above.
TLDR: No, it doesn't, unless the published chart doesn't have that restriction printed on it. If it does, you can only exceed if ATC allows you to.-
1
-
-
I'd opt for 2 and 3, though if you were on a SID that had waypoint speed restrictions (which the Keppa1 does not have) part of the correct answer would be missing, as such an instruction would also cancel those restrictions
I'd hesitate to use the phrase "usual 250kts IAS in class C", because as far as I'm aware, 250/10000 requirements (apparently now referred to as an "ATC traffic management speed' ) are set per aerodrome in ERSA and are no longer a blanket rule for IFR if you are off a SID or STAR (eg, Launceston has associated class C airspace below 10K but has no 250k requirement in ERSA). All Class C aerodromes have that requirement, but not all C airspace does, as far as I can tell.IFR has no airspace speed limitation in the AIP in class C (ENR 1.4.4, as opposed to basically every other airspace class), so this traffic management speed in ERSA is the only speed restriction that applies to IFR in Class C that are not on a published procedure.
Worth pointing out that if I've understood the whole thing correctly, in the OP scenario, if the SID was then subsequently cancelled for JET, they would then have to reduce to 250 knots under 10k in the class C due to the ATC traffic management speed at Melbourne (NOT an airspace speed limitation or an ATC issued instruction) unless it was then cancelled again by ATC.I also assume you would have to use separate phraseology for cancelling that restriction for IFR and VFR when not on SIDs and STARS at a Class C aerodrome (obviously VFR never would be), as the latter have an airspace limitation speed in C that IFR doesn't. I suspect you could say "No Speed Restrictions" or "No ATC speed restrictions" to the IFR, but would specifically need to say "No Speed Restrictions" to the VFR to cancel 250/10k.
Clear as mud?
-
1
-
-
Interestingly enough, I have the option Peter is having trouble with, but not the other things I mentioned. Porque no los dos?
-
Sounds like an issue that requires emailing IT. There are various issues that people have experienced on here that seem to be permission related (I for example can't send PMs to people and also am usually unable to view files uploaded and served from whatever is serving the forums. Browny tried to help me out previously but we didn't end up sorting it. Maybe you'll have better luck with your issue? Maybe we'll all have better luck when IT is a little less in flux
-
I have used the previously linked guide for Windows 7 and haven't had an issue. I can't comment on Windows 10.
If VRC is also complaining, that sounds like there's a separate issue with your audio device. Make sure no other applications are running that may be running on that set of ports or otherwise taking exclusive control of your audio device. Can you confirm what audio device you are using (whatever is named in your sound settings in windows), but would also be good to know if you're using onboard motherboard sound, a digital interface running on its own drivers, etc -
Hi Mark,
You shouldn't need to configure anything in order to get the application to run initially. Sounds like you're insta crashing?
To confirm, this error occurs when you start AVC, and you are not running vPilot when you start up AVC?
Also, to check, you have gone through this guide?
-
Are you running DX10 preview mode/have Steve's DX10 fixer installed? Sounds like a very specific DirectX FSX problem.
-
Does Eoins installer install in program files by default? Mine aren't there and I'm reasonably sure i used it for the first install.
-
I'm curious about these CTDs everyone seems to report. Do you guys install Euroscope into program files or something? I just have mine in the root local drive directory, don't think I've ever had a CTD in 3.1d and TAATS. Run in Windows 7 and 10 and just with my regular user privileges.
-
Yeah, you can't give an instruction to depart, or immediately depart, if they haven't reported ready. I think what you're suggesting Ryan would be only useful if they told you before they get to the HP, so unless you're going to ask every aircraft to report ready before reaching the holding point, you're better off trusting that a pilot who will have a significant delay at the HP of more than one or two minutes will tell you before they get to the HP, at least if there is other following traffic.
Pilots do sometimes forget to report ready in any case (or they report at the holding point but not ready), so doesn't hurt to ask if you want to plan ahead for a specific reason.
Craig has about the right of it. It's pretty rare you would have a situation where the time saved by having an aircraft taxi on and off the runway would be greater than the time it would take for them to be ready in the first place (they'd probably have a significant issue with their takeoff config). You shouldn't need to resort to that. A quick prompt will likely resolve any issue. -
I would triple check the motherboard on that PC has a PCI-E slot for a dedicated GPU first. I suspect most modern motherboards probably do, but you don't want to buy a GPU for that machine and find you can't actually install it.
-
1
-
-
If you're set to spend 900 on just a GPU, I'd at least seriously consider a complete system rebuild. It may cost more in the short term but will save you long term, especially as deprecated socket parts may well cost you more for what you get, especially going into the future. Also especially If you ever consider going to P3d or xplane11, or adding more intensive add-ons. If you spend 900 now but that puts you at the limit of what your mobo can give you ever, is it worth it?
Eoin suggested PC Part Picker, maybe give that a whirl, do the numbers. If you still want to just upgrade the gpu after doing that, that's fine. Doesn't hurt to consider options, and there are people here more up to speed on current hardware than I who can help consider options. Do you happen to know what motherboard you have? Windows system or cpuz should tell you.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Greg Barber said:
A VFR pilot should make a broadcast on the appropriate area frequency whenever it is reasonably necessary to avoid a collision or the risk of a collision with another aircraft. In the example you mentioned (on VATSIM), the appropriate area frequency would be SY_APP 124.400MHz.
Is that a requirement should, or a "should monitor unicom" level of should?
-
17 hours ago, Robert Fluke said:
So I take it from some that yes its okay to do so (remember ATC doesn't need to respond to said broadcast) but obviously not a set in stone requirement
That would be my view, yes. You don't NEED to do it, nine times out of ten it's probably superfluous, but it's not really going to hurt if you want to do it, and you may catch that one VFR guy near you who's listening to the ATC and not paying attention to unicom.
-
1
-
-
Grain of salt.
I'm not overly familiar with the procedures in RL (I'd certainly defer to Flukey in any case; ) ). Obviously a factor is that generally on the network if you're class G, you never need to do anything other than monitor unicom, although I understand that IRL aircraft may have requirements on area VHF (I think the 5000ft thing may be relevant too?).
If it were me, and I were wanting to be realistic but also practical in terms of the network, I'd probably follow a similar procedure to departing IFR from a CTAF aerodrome, have unicom on one radio and whatever relevant ATS is available on the other, broadcast lane of entry on both, probably as "xxx APP and yyy TFC, zzz." on app so it's a bit clearer it's an advisory broadcast. I might even message the controller before hand to let them know that's what I'm going to do, because it's not a thing most people would have seen before and they may be unsure if they are supposed to provide you a control service or some sort of identification.Maybe also be aware of whether or not the ATC freq is congested, that's obviously why the area vhf exists in the first place IRL, so if the controller is busy giving a control service to a lot of other aircraft, either delay or forgo the broadcast.
But most of the time, there's no harm in doing it, and some controllers will get a tickle out of having VFR traffic broadcasts, so why not?
-
1 hour ago, Liesel Downes said:
We actually had a SMRM in Darwin down to Alice this time last year or so. It was like the rad Radelaide one a couple months ago. Maybe the Adelaide one was helped by it being a route involving Melbourne?
There may have been one between AD and ML, but I was talking about from AD to AS. Not sure when that was, maybe more than a year ago? There would absolutely have been a few fly ins from ML for that one I'm sure.
I don't specifically recall the DN to AD one, I wasn't there, but that's quite a long flight. I suspect even Alice to Adelaide is probably towards the higher end of what people will be prepared to fly for something like MRM.
There seems to also been a downward trend in traffic generally aside from major events, so I don't want to overly generalise about what people are prepared to fly. But I do think that MRM, by virtue of it being the only traffic'd regular event, does mean that people are more prepared to fly en masse on a Monday evening and even to step outside the regular corridor, because they expect there to be some critical mass of other planes and ATC.I think that's what happened with the Parafield staff up that one time - enough pilots took a chance that it snowballed. I assume that's why Spilled MRM is even a thing, because someone recognised that a large amount of people are planning to fly at that time, so why not tap it for other routes?
-
Well, "build it and they will come" doesn't seem the solution here, unless you mean "boycott entirely Sydney and Melbourne for all eternity", which is not reasonable. There are plenty of examples I have seen involving long amounts of time spent on other stations, including during designated events such as SMRM, AO, etc, for multiple hours, with almost nil traffic.
I would bet my house that if those involved in the country-wide staff up had done so for a reasonable amount of time, let's say 3 hours instead of 25 minutes (I wasn't there), then you would still have had as many or more people on the arterial route than the rest of the country. Perhaps if this was sustained for months you would change peoples habits, but more likely people would just return to controlling where the traffic is, or the traffic would not change. No real way of knowing without doing it, and doing it to that degree would probably be unreasonable for both pilots and controllers.
There's also an element of serendipity of course, for every gangbusters Parafield staff up you get a dozen empty ones. It's just a reality of the network and partially also the nature of the real world nature of traffic routes in Australia. If someone had a magic bullet, they would have fired it by now.
The goal of MRM as you have stated Kirk is laudable, but it seems to me that it doesn't actually "burn SY_ML" out of anyone's system. Pick a day, it will still be the most flown route. At least SMRM gets a bit of traffic going, and no one seems to be overly upset at trading the odd SY-ML run, as long as its reasonably easy to fly. The last ASP to radelaide SMRM actually went quite well with a pretty continuous stream of traffic (don't recall if we've had an Alice to Darwin recently) though following the trend of previous MRMs it might be a bit quieter this time around. The wild heli SMRM was a bit of a bust, but on the other hand was probably also a bit too left field
-
1 hour ago, Richard Quigley said:
Correct Peter.
Also consider that you have to be able control in French for local french language only Aircraft!
Mais mon aéroglisseur est plein d'anguilles. :'(
-
The chart you linked seems to indicate approach services are provided by Tontouta.
EDIT: I think I get the question now. Is it "can NWWL be opened as a standard position?" It appears the CTR does belong to the tower, but only up to 1200ft AGL (i.e basically the circuit). So similar to something like CG or the metro class D towers here, the difference being CTR turns to class G outside HOR and appears to be only activated by NOTAM?
-
I've found free RL charts readily accessible for Aus, NZ, South Africa, North America, mainland China, Hong Kong, Japan, Western Europe and the Caribbean. I'm sure there are more besides those. A couple (e.g China and Japan) require you to sign up for their eAIP, but it's not that big a deal and they don't seem to overly care if you're not attached to an airline or even a RL pilot. Just don't abuse those services and you should be fine. Some of the VATSIM divisions (e.g VATPRC) also provide the charts directly, so always worth checking with the divisions if you can't find the RL easily.
In all honesty, while Jepps gives you detailed info particularly regarding local procedures all in one place, I haven't been convinced it's worthwhile for simming to drop money on the full Navigraph/Jepps combo. In some places like the UK and here, you basically get all operational info in the AIP for free anyway, and like Eoin, I often prefer the formatting and layout of the local service providers to Jepps' anyway. But see how you go with the Navigraph, you can always drop back just to the navdata which is much much cheaper.-
2
-
-
Also, if you look at the airways for their flightplan you'll usually be able to see what radial in relation to LT or any other VOR they will be arriving or leaving your airspace on, assuming they're tracking to/from xyz RNAV waypoint or navaid direct to LT. In practice you will rarely need to longitudinally or laterally separate anything on VATSIM, but using that you can get an idea on what radials you would need to use to separate laterally, or to ensure aircraft are on the same radial to separate via DME.
Setting up PTT in Swift
in Pilot Clients and Utilities
Posted · Edited by Nicholas Gilbert
Pretty sure that's normal behaviour Dan. The loop test functions regardless of PTT, it is as designed.
If you just want to see if the PTT is functioning correctly, you should be able to set it to play clicks on activation.