I tried VATSIM with both SB4 and FSINNI don't get on with either of the two clients, just don't like them.If there was a more upto date, more integrated client that didn't kill my AA, i'd probably use VATSIM, as it stands, I don't.

I've listened in on a few occasions but never actually got down to trying it. Would really like to. I think there is a little intimidation there. To finally get out in the mix of it all and not screw up. I have always thought it would be good PR for VATSIM to hold some "clinics" or workshops where nubies meet at some far off airport. VATSIM mans it with a few controllers and then you line up with others and do some fly-arounds with hand-on instructions from the controllers on proper speak... what to expect... things like that.But I would love to attend a big fly-in at Kai Tak. I think that would be quite a rush.Clutch

VATSIM now has authorized training organisations (ATOs) that are available to train & evalutate pilots which will eliminate any intimidation you may have. They can help you get setup, how to file a flight plan, communicate with ATC, etc.Here is a lst of ATOs:http://linksmanager.com/vatsimvas/authorised-training-organisation.htmlPick on that suits your needs and sign up.

Its not that I reallly refuse to fly online, but its just not the style of flying I enjoy for serveral reasons.1. I often fly on a laptop that's not connected to the Internet.2. When connected with my main FS workstation, I like the freedom of doing what I want and going where I want when. This includes rotary wing and GA flight, and sometimes heavy metal. AI gives my enough traffic to suit me. I was a professional pilot for a number of years and bound by all the rules then. Now I like the freedom of doing my own thing, much like the early days of aviation.3. I want to spend my limited time flying, and not tweaking or setting up sessions. GW

- coverage, often atc goes online when nearing area- atc attitudes- atc who speakes faster than spongebob in a complete area free of planes- atc who isnt understandable because they ate the mike- empty airports- atc who like to be more restrictive than the real world- need of a zillion of charts- unable to do vor to vor in europe- connection woes.. voice doesnt follow etc- workload, we dont have a copilot- sturdy and strickt rules for a 'fun' and free hobby- pilots who ask atc how to fly an airplane- sb or fsinn integration- not flying on the fly, pause problem+ free+ human interaction+ scenario friendly+ more real with most atcI never use it anymore, did a lot during Satco days. PFE covers all my needs atm.

I can pause my sim, even if online. You can't? - kind of easy - press pause and close SB.Only impractical on landing and takeoff... so what. If you have problems at those two times, you shouldn't be flying at all, rather finish other things then commit to flying.I find pausing and acceleration way to unreal to use it on my flight. I thought the point was to simulate reality.

Whatever floats your boat, I suppose. AI traffic and offline ATC programs make me feel like I'm playing with my kids train set. ;-) There's no unknowns to the flight. Everything is controlled by the computer. I love the human factor of VATSIM - even when things go sideways. Much more realistic, imho.For those who haven't tried an online network: why not try something that is FREE and INTERACTIVE and (depending on how busy the network might be) REALISTIC, SOCIAL and - did I mention this? - FREE? Great fun, great way to learn about real-world operations, each flight/interaction is unique.VATSIM has a pilot resource center at http://vatsim.net/prc that is a great way to check out the ins and outs of online flying.

I do not refuse to fly online, nor do I refuse to fly offline, I do either depending on what mood I am in. As for coverage I would like to see IVAO and VATSIM become one with one voice client, I'd be willing to subscribe to a venture such as that.

I do not refuse to fly online, nor do I refuse to fly offline, I do either depending on what mood I am in. As for coverage I would like to see IVAO and VATSIM become one with one voice client, I'd be willing to subscribe to a venture such as that.

I've been flying (almost exclusively) online since the early SATCO days. I find people often cite sparse ATC and traffic as one of the reasons they don't fly online. I also see this as a catch 22 of sorts. If more people were to try being persistent with flying online it would drive traffic numbers up. In turn this would drive ATC interest up and increase traffic, and so forth. Many pilots may also decide they'd like to pursue the ATC side of things and therefore growth of the network is perpetuated.I've been around long enough to realize that politics will likely keep IVAO from ever joining up with VATSIM. IVAO, after all, is the result of a disagreement between some european SATCO higher-ups way back in the day. This whole IVAO-VATSIM fragment is ultimately detrimental to online flying as a whole. It's asinine that ATC in Europe is fragmented the way it is between the networks. Just imagine how much traffic and ATC there would be in Europe if there were one network (I don't think there would be much difference in US and Canada as VATSIM clearly dominates here; S. America is another story though)! It's rather silly that most UK ATC and pilots are on VATSIM vs. France on IVAO; or Spain on IVAO and Portugal on VATSIM. Ridiculous and stupid, but likely here to stay...

I've been flying (almost exclusively) online since the early SATCO days. I find people often cite sparse ATC and traffic as one of the reasons they don't fly online. I also see this as a catch 22 of sorts. If more people were to try being persistent with flying online it would drive traffic numbers up. In turn this would drive ATC interest up and increase traffic, and so forth. Many pilots may also decide they'd like to pursue the ATC side of things and therefore growth of the network is perpetuated.

More pilots won't make a bit of difference in filling the VATSIM coverage gaps. You'll just have more pilots flying to the same 4 or 5 popular destinations, the coverage gaps will remain just as they are. The reason there are coverage gaps is because Controllers don't staff positions as pilots need them to. They stay in their preferred locations and wait for the pilots to choose to fly to their airspace. Only a more flexible system that emphasizes floating Controllers that can staff various positions as the pilots need them to be staffed would ever be able to make a dent in the coverage gaps.Regards.Ernie.

Just as an interesting aside, if anyone is interested in modern ATC simulation for Europe, but not in doing it online, I can highly recommend this thing. It is stunningly good: http://www.londoncontrol.com/Al

I never use it anymore, did a lot during Satco days. PFE covers all my needs atm.

I just tried PFE but I have no idea how to contact the ATC.It connects to FSX just fine but then all i hear is radio chatter and I can't request anything?I've tried looking for help files but none cover in-game?? any help?Thanks

Ah..you have to press 0. Why don't they just tell you that?

Only a more flexible system that emphasizes floating Controllers that can staff various positions as the pilots need them to be staffed would ever be able to make a dent in the coverage gaps.Regards.Ernie.

Best would be, if they insist on exams, to simply set up a basic atc examn, and then let people controll where they want, and how deep they want to go into it.Get rid of the ARTCC's and the politics, attitudes, and burocracy, and like in the old days, see more smaller airports been staffed.

I just tried PFE but I have no idea how to contact the ATC.It connects to FSX just fine but then all i hear is radio chatter and I can't request anything?I've tried looking for help files but none cover in-game?? any help?Thanks

RTFM as they say. Its all in there.

Best would be, if they insist on exams, to simply set up a basic atc examn, and then let people controll where they want, and how deep they want to go into it.Get rid of the ARTCC's and the politics, attitudes, and burocracy, and like in the old days, see more smaller airports been staffed.

This would not work as each airspace is different and what applies to one airport, FIR or ARTCC does not apply to another.For example, in Moncton FIR where I control, we have a visiting Controller from Thailand. He is an excellent controller and is a I1 (Instructor) in Thailand but has gone through extensive training in order to understand the flight procedures that we have in Moncton.What you are proposing would severly diminish the quality of ATC.

I will throw a couple cents in the pile here. When I fly, I fly exclusively online. Having a computer animated ATC is just a downgrade IMO. Whats the fun having a pre programmed ATC giving instructions. Besides I like to interact with other people. I have made quite a few friends on here by doing so. That brings up a whole new can of worms is the lack of interaction in our society because of computers, xbox, etc. People have in set in their mind that they HAVE to fly a certain route. Never understood that. Take a look on servinfo. See where the ATC. Go fly there. I don't know how many times I have heard "My VA doesn't fly that route." Jeez, cut the umbilical cord. Fly it on your own already. Besides flying into new airports is what its all about. Learning new procedures, etc. I have seen screenshots of servinfo with 80 aircraft sitting in KORD before. Talking about MORE than realistic. As well, ever seen "Cross the Pond" screenshots? wow.What I think needs to be done though is a shared cockpit. A perfected on that is. No, there are no excellent ones out there right now. Give one to me and I will give you 50 bugs. If it was perfected it would revolutionize FS all together. That being said, the organization I fly online with needs an overhaul IMO. It hasn't done diddly to increase traffic. I have been with them since day one. The BIGGEST difference that was made was when Joel released SB3. Before that there was a consistent 300-500 online flyers. After that release, there was a consistent 700-1100 online flyers (and ATC of course). But that number hasn't increased in the past 5-6 years. There needs to be a new innovation brought on. The problem is the organizations "rules" and I would go as far as saying staff. Sorry but look at any company in the world. One of the top ten rules of investing: don't put your money in a company that has kept a CEO around for an extended period of time. The company stagnates. Same goes with this organization. It needs new talent, new ideas, and a fresh start. It needs change. Until that happens 700-1100 flyers is all you will ever see. I don't mean to sound rude or anything. The staff there has done many great things. Sometimes you just gotta know when to give the reigns to someone else and become an advisor. We already have amazing add-ons for this hobby of ours. This area of realism has progressed by leaps and bounds. Now the pilot-atc interaction needs to do the same and I can't see that happening in the near future. What really needs to happen is IVAO and VATSIM need to merge, all the staff at both organizations needs to be changed so now the new staff has a fresh start and can play together happily. The two organizations combined would be impressive. Especially Europe. When you have THAT much involvement in a hobby, change is inevitable and it would only be for the good. Anyways, I can see everyones point of view on this topic. There just needs to be a happy medium to bring it together. I have never used radar contact but seems lie a lot of people like it. Too bad there couldn't be an interaction between it and VATSIM for example. So you load up at an airport that was not being staffed by VATSIM. You get you clearance from RC to an airport that was staffed by VATSIM. As you near the VATSIM ARTCC RC hands you off to VATSIM and away you go. Heck I would even be interested in something like that. Well all of this is just my opinion and everyone has one. In the meantime take care all!Jack