Russell D - 1104622
-
Posts
602 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Russell D - 1104622
-
-
Tried looking for Swift in the Approved Software referenced but I failed to find any mention of Swift. That begs the question. Is it approved or is approval still pending? I am keen to explore the possibilities of the new client.
Rusty
-
Laminar might want to take a look at the highly anticipated beta for Blender 2.8. I was reading the release notes and it is introducing eevee. This is the holy grail of rendering in real time as the animation and modelling are being created. Hard to conceive. Many a time I have set my computer rendering over night or even days to produce a simple 30 second ray traced animation. And now they boast this will be done in real time. If this is the future them I am getting myself a top notch GPU. I am eagerly anticipating delving into this feature of Blender 2.8 as soon as I can set aside some time and money for a new rig
.
Blender is open source, so it wouldn't surprise me if some of "eevee's" code happens to Blend (see what I did there?
) into future releases of X-Plane and dare I say P3D. I certainly hope so!
Rusty
-
1
-
-
Thanks Richard for the clarification. Changing callsign is overkill. Got it!
Rusty
-
g'day,
Pilot's flightplan submiissions don't appear to be accepted once ATC has inserted some form of change. Not being a controller I can only assume this prevents a pilot from accidentally overwriting ATC's ongoing amendments. I can remember sitting at Gatwick once during a busy event and being advised to amend a departure so I wouldn't interfere with event departures and couldn't. No matter how I tried to amend the flight plan and submit it, the controller retained the incorrect original. After a while I took the initiative of bringing up my own flightplan as listed in VATSPY and notice my original submission had been altered slightly. The controller's change seems to lock out any attempt to update it further. Logged off, tweaked a new callsign, logged in and all was good. Lesson learned. Keep this in mind when you attempt to refile another flightplan after completing a flight using the SAME callsign. It is very likely the controllers had been updating the original plan during your flight and even though you have completed it, the system may still consider this flightplan to be active and lock out your attempts to submit a new one.
Rusty
-
G'day.
Would love to attend the airshow however the CFO has denied the requested funds and has sentenced me to watch the V8s circulate our local streets of Adelaide. I commiserate with the drivers. Expecting temperatures in excess of 37c. I am considering watching from my inflated armchair in the pool with drink in hand!
For those that are attending the airshow, I would appreciate it if you could put forward a case to the organisers to send an F-35 or two to overfly the V8 event in Adelaide. I intend to have my camera armed and ready whilst bobbing in the pool.
Rusty
-
1
-
-
-
Wow, VFR had an event in Emerald only last weekend. Didn't know they were monitoring the landings there. I will endeavour to find out which pilot it was and provide details.
Rusty
-
3
-
-
Hi Lionel.
You are absolutely right. Whilst not obvious in my scenery (FSX with ORBX) what ever scenery that is active seems to have pasted an aerial photo on the airstrip, similar to the top viewed shrubs alongside, and you have merely landed on standard terrain that happens to be painted with a lined runway. There is something similar with ORBX in the Flinders Ranges where a real world airstrip is painted on the corresponding surface where no scenery for the airport exists. An interesting perk of flying VFR and tracking your progress using real maps that detail real world airfields. Sometimes you come across this phenomena. In fact, during that very same flight, many of us overflew Mount Hope VOR (now de-commissioned) looking for some indication of the airport that exists at that location. Nothing was observed besides the nav equipment, but maybe if you had overflown you might have seen something based on the scenery you are running.
Rusty
-
1
-
-
I find it quite paradoxical that flying VFR in VATSIM is often more confusing than flying IFR. It is typically the reverse in RW aviation with far more instruction and training required prior to being permitted to operate an aircraft IFR. RW VFR pilots have clearly defined frequencies and requirements fully documented in publications such as VTC, VNC , ERSA, DAH etc... but due to various differences introduced when mapping RW to VATSIM these become mostly if not entirely irrelevant. I am unaware of any documents to assist in providing clarification to VFR pilots flying in VATSIM where ATC is providing a service. Presently VFR pilots often find themselves inconsistently jumping through hoops to contact overlying ATC on a frequency that differs from those published. Then finding on subsequent flights with similar ATC services that the previous procedure no longer applies and VFR radio calls are not to be made on that frequency. No surprise new pilots find themselves apprehensive and somewhat confused about what is expected of them when flying VFR with overlying ATC coverage.
With the imminent introduction of VATSIM Voice System (VVS), surely this represents an opportunity to align VATSIM VFR procedures with RW VFR procs as published in RW documents. According to the linked VVS article ;
Quote...ATC able to control multiple frequencies ...
I understand this is meant to allow a controller to cover combined freqs at airports such as del and gnd, or twr_rwy1 and twr_rwy2 and the like. But surely this will also allow a VATSIM Sydney APPR controller to exercise their right to cover SY_CEN and capture any VFR traffic as well. Assuming this is correct than I look forward to being able to adopt typical VFR procs knowing that should there be overlying ATC that wish to interact with me as a VFR pilot then THEY will be able to initiate the steps to do this themselves. No more need for a VFR pilot to try and guess as to whether or not overlying ATC should be contacted or not.
Flukey's question that initiated this thread would simply require a reply saying he should make his call on the published frequency. Any ATC services will be provided at the controller's discretion. I like that prospect a lot!
Rusty
-
-
G'day,
To follow up from Col's post, any attempt to connect to the VATPAC ts3 server is returning with a client error. Last successful connection was Wed the 7th (World Discovery) but since then any attempt to connect results in an error.
I would be appreciative of a resolution in time for this evening's (Friday) vfr operations event.
Rusty
-
Thanks Jake. Not only clears up the issues getting the GLS 34 implemented but also informs me that I will need to download the Melbourne VTC at the commencement of the next cycle.
Rusty
-
Anyone know why there is yet to be a GLS for runway 34? The remaining runways are serviced. I can only assume there must be some technical obstacle preventing its implementation.
Rusty
-
According to the bulletin, the new tech appears to be frequency centred as opposed to adopting the legacy "Voiceroom" concept. Depending on how closely this paradigm is simulated then I concieve that Voice CTAF will be a going concern as communication will be dependent on pilots using a particular frequency within a limited distance based on their position in the VATSIM world. As such, pilots within line of sight should be able to transmit and be heard by others on the same frequemcy. An excellent solution if these intrepid developers pull this off. I am hoping they will avoid applying limitations that will cripple its use as a CTAF solution. That is, I can conceive a scheme whereby only frequencies established by ATC entities in the network can be tuned and communicated on. Under such a scheme, CTAF will not be supported however in the initial implementation may be imposed to reduce the resources likely to be required in supporting this paradigm shift.
In either case I support this whole heartedly as it will ultimately bring the real and VATSIM world closer together and I am keen to see how this is all implemented.
Rusty
-
1
-
1
-
-
Yep - I am usually the one guilty of flying concorde in VATPAC airspace. I typically invade MRM every couple of weeks to keep controllers on their toes. Requires vectors in the TMA as the ol' girl is not RNAV capable and is not compliant with RVSM. Can't simply string concorde along a SID or STAR.
Handy to fly during Worldflight Oceanic and Cross the Ditch legs as well
Rusty
-
3
-
1
-
-
Only returned from an extended easter for the inaugural return of this overlooked icon from the past. Wasn't even aware the event was on. There may be a clash with a weekly Compass IFR event typically conducted on Thurs. These are usually arranged by Pete Smith. I will inform him and maybe the events can be synced once a month. The pilots would benefit from getting some IFR in regionals. Should snag at least three additional pilots, typically more.
In my experience, Thursdays/Tuesdays seem to attract least attention from both ATC and Pilots in VATSIM. Never have determined a reason for this phenomena. I suspect those with a sporting inclination are likely to be committed to training on these nights. I doubt it has anything to do with preferring to catch the idiot box (TV). Not much on now the Commonwealth Games have ended
-
G'day,
I have been having interface problems with the calendar administration. I have been unable to successfully post new events. The text controls are not displayed preventing the entering and formatting of text and images. This is consistent over all Browsers I have tried. Anyone else having this problem?
Rusty
-
Out of curiosity. I am not a RAAFv member. What is the policy if a member with appropriate permissions drags me into the channel?
-
Keeping altitude separation makes sense. The published chart might benefit from a similar indication of "NOT BELOW 6000" over BAKER to reassure us poor uninformed pilots. All there is at present is the unlikely MDA of 2500.
-
G'day,
Thought I would throw this one out there for someone more knowledgeable than I.
Whilst operating on a YMML arrival into rwy 27 via ARBEY, I find it disconcerting to fly the arrival on the rwy 34 centre line up to BAKER before turning downwind to PAULA. Those of us that regularly fly in and out of YMML know full well that there can be departures from rwy 34 whilst landing rwy 27. Anyone have any insight why the published ARBEY arrival rwy 27 insists on this practice of having an arriving plane in position to cl®ash with aircraft departing rwy 34?
Recognising this circumstance, I usually nag ATC with a request for direct PAULA from ARBEY when I think there is the possibility of departures using rwy 34. Seems prudent risk management to me! :cool:
Rusty
-
Hi all,
Thought I should thank all the control services provided at Parafield this afternoon. Fully staffed and competently controlled including a tower each for the left and right runways. Excellent job all controllers. The most realistic recreation of Parafield operations I have ever had since joining VATSIM way back.
It was also great to see the phenomenal support of pilots to login and join in and take full advantage of this rare opportunity. Entirely fun yet as real as any class D op since Panic Stations was conducted at Moorabbin all those years ago.
Thanks to all. This sort of experience is why I joined and continue to support this fantastic hobby/passion of ours. ;D
-
In my opinion, this is a scale within a scale. The outermost is the amount of traffic and ATC coverage at a given time. With minimal numbers let's face it, the realism scale has to be 95/5. When numbers are marginal, ie enroute and tower for ML then 50/50 is awesome. That is, allowing CTR to extend both laterally and to selected airports. A higher realism would negate any form of extending. Of course in the midst of a highly congested event then nothing less the 20/80 is needed. However, the inner scale makes no sense, since at this level of realism I am having more fun than the 20 would suggest!
My response is 10/90 as it suggests lots of ATC coverage and aircraft traffic thus necessitating high levels of realism just to cope! At this point, you redefine fun as NOT LESS THAN 10. The value 10 is only achieved when you are unable to participate.
-
Ambitious. Highly admirable. Sadly I am unable to advise about GA aircraft you can use in X-Plane.
Looking at your proposed route. There are probable some opportunities to island hop. Yes, I can see you have included the biggest island of Tasmania :rolleyes: however there are numerous others. Some suggestions, crossing Bass Strait southwards would benefit a visit to Flinders Island, northwards via King Island, in SA visit Kingscote, NT consider the Tiwi Islands north of Darwin. Maybe designate a special visit to Lord Howe Island.
Once you have a tentative schedule, it should be possible to set up VFR Events to cover a leg or two of your journey.
Safe flying!
-
G'day,
I have made a couple of attempts to log into the calendar to enter next weeks VFR events. Sadly, no luck. I am assuming there is a problem or my user/password has been altered.
Also curious as to why the authentication for the calendar isn't secured with SSL? My browser is constantly nagging that authentication details can be view by a third party. Can it be adapted to use VATSIM authentication like the forums?
Rusty
.
) into future releases of X-Plane and dare I say P3D. I certainly hope so!
FNG Logging in
in General
Posted
Hi,
As a pilot I can attest to Tristan's comment. If a controller remains actively online long enough and often. If they are also conducting their activity at predictable times in predictable locations then pilots recognise this over time and will tend to begin spawing to depart or plan to arrive during sessions of active ATC. Many of us pilots are also in VA's and undertake flights on VATSIM whilst conducting our VA activity. As such, routes are often difficult to adjust last minute. This leaves a pilot with no flexibility to simply go and conduct a flight at a location a controller has decided to control just to provide some traffic. When it happens to me I sigh and shrug off the missed opportunity. In essence, any pilot looking to attract a controller some how has to predict where and when other pilots are likely to fly. ATC won't typically bother opening up airspace unless they see at least some minimal amount of flight activity somewhere they are willing to control. Sadly I have yet to attain that elusive crystal ball that allows me to know ahead of time where I can fly that would be beneficial to myself and ATC. That's typically why events tend to be the focus of activity as it allows both pilots and controllers to plan ahead to ensure their preferred online VATSIM activities coincides with others.
There was a time when VATPAC arranged Daily Focus activities. That is, in addition to MRM, there would be Australia Online, Regional Twins, VFR Ops and when occasion permitted Wild weather Wed among others. This collection of minor events were quite literally conducted on a regular daily basis. This was to help guide pilots and controllers to locations and times where others might like to conduct their flying and controller kaos. Sadly, even this often failed to be sufficient, especially on Tues and Thurs.. Can only think this is when the active VATPAC members are out and about training for sport, watching the idiot box or are socialising in some manner.
Typically, opening controlled airspace at random can often result in a controller not seeing a single pilot within their jurisdiction. In the many years I have flown in VATSIM, I can only recall a single exception to this. On a Friday afternoon I was looking to do some VATPAC flying and happened to notice in VATSPY that Parafield aerodrome, a small South Australian class D procedural tower adjacent to Adelaide Airport was FULLY staffed. I suppose a few controllers got together and thought it was worth trying. It was certainly not an advertised event that I was aware of. They had only just come online so being my home airport I quickly took advantage and decided to jump into a small single engine GA to fly circuits and conduct flights in the training area. Apparently, every GA pilot must have been looking to do the same. Within 15 minutes there was literally 20+ aircraft spawning at or near the aerodrome looking to join the fun. First time I can ever recall both towers controlling parallel runways, a delivery and ground being active and up to their ears in traffic in this fashion at Parafield or any other procedural class D. It was incredible to hear ground refuse pilots circuit clearance because there were too many planes operating at the aerodrome. A special couple of hours for pilots and controllers alike. Any controllers looking to repeat this feat anytime soon?
Rusty