Anyone here refuse to fly online? If so, why?

[AlphaInfinity 13]

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

Jack, great points! One to add...improve the applications needed to fly on vatsim(Make them simple, more reliable. SB hasn't been updated since 2008 and the developer is basically saying that they are throwing in the towl due to the Aces closure http://squawkbox.ca/news/ ). FSinn isn't the most intuitive application to configure. If someone were to spend time improving/updating these applications, I believe we would see more folks on Vatsim.

[Hirgab 9]

Why haven't any developers taken the opportunity to develop an add-on that's infinitely better than FSInn/SB, that would be a money crop wouldn't it?Also, maybe the community can start a petition to have VATSIM and IVAO merge? :( :(

[Jack_C 1]

Why haven't any developers taken the opportunity to develop an add-on that's infinitely better than FSInn/SB, that would be a money crop wouldn't it?Also, maybe the community can start a petition to have VATSIM and IVAO merge? :( :(

Again. goes against VATSIM "rules". They are basically wanting devs to puts hundreds (if not thousands) of hours into these programs and get nothing for it which i Totally disagree with. Their time is worth money too (especially when the wife and kids come first). I wouldnt mind paying for client that is updated and perfected. Jeez whats a couple bucks. Means nothing to me but the world to these devs. Like I said change is required.

[dmaher 0]

Why haven't any developers taken the opportunity to develop an add-on that's infinitely better than FSInn/SB, that would be a money crop wouldn't it?

As far as I know SB is freeware by constitution, so I think the next SB effort would also need to be voluntary.

Their time is worth money too (especially when the wife and kids come first).

+1...I think Joel's wife and kids and new company would agree too :smile:FYI Joel's the guy with the flowchart and the shotgun.http://www.youtube.com/user/hotheadgames#p/u/9/4IG2_engPwAand anotherhttp://www.youtube.com/user/hotheadgames#p/u/18/v034-N73EZA

[CXA001 5]

I am not sure what VA was polled but here are our stats for the April 2011 which paint quite a different story:Number of Flights: 1,109 Flown on Vatsim: 884 Flown on IVAO: 197 Flown Offline: 27 I don't have a problem with people flying offline, but IMHO there is nothing like getting together with fellow pilots on any given night have doing a group flight together.

[Jack_C 1]

I am not sure what VA was polled but here are our stats for the April 2011 which paint quite a different story:Number of Flights: 1,109 Flown on Vatsim: 884 Flown on IVAO: 197 Flown Offline: 27 I don't have a problem with people flying offline, but IMHO there is nothing like getting together with fellow pilots on any given night have doing a group flight together.

I agree with you wholeheartedly Marc. Most VA's I am sure do fly online but there are some individuals that dont. I just dont get their logic when they don't fly online. Thats all.

[ErnieAlston 33]

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 disagree.The role of the Tower Controller is basically the same all over the world ,same for Approach and center Controller. The only thing really different are the local policies and procedures, and in the real worldthose procedures are designed for a much larger level of traffic than is seen on VATSIM on a normal day.I think the desire for some in VATSIM to try and strictly adhere to these same real world proceduresand policies has made it un-necessarily complex for their actual traffic levels.It is this reason so much training on VATSIM is required, and why VATSIM Controllers for the most partcannot float from one position to another as the pilots need them to.True, to increase coverage gaps, they would need to simplify things. But again they are already unnecessarilycomplex for their actual traffic levels in most areas.I don't believe simplifying some procedures and policies would dimish ATC quality at all.The basics of Air Traffic Control should still be Instructed. Just de-empasize needing so much required local knowledge and generalize it so a Controller with a Center rating can work almost any Center, come up with a system which a Controller can be quickly briefed on a small numberof pertinent local procedures and be able to plug in after a 10 minute review.Certainly Exceptions can be made for high traffic HUB areas (NY,LON,LA,FRA). But the rest of the world can besimplified procesures wise, and would greatly increase the ATC coverage for the pilots.Regards.Ernie.

[AlphaInfinity 13]

Again. goes against VATSIM "rules". They are basically wanting devs to puts hundreds (if not thousands) of hours into these programs and get nothing for it which i Totally disagree with. Their time is worth money too (especially when the wife and kids come first). I wouldnt mind paying for client that is updated and perfected. Jeez whats a couple bucks. Means nothing to me but the world to these devs. Like I said change is required.

Makes total sense as to why these applications are not updated. I think they certainly need to change that rule. I would pay some money if a developer put some time and effort into coding a professional quality replacement for the current apps.

[ErnieAlston 33]

Makes total sense as to why these applications are not updated. I think they certainly need to change that rule. I would pay some money if a developer put some time and effort into coding a professional quality replacement for the current apps.

Perhaps the real solution is something created from scratch, rather than expecting an existing network to eventually change their rules.Where in the design of the system all these things mentioned can be taken into account. - Free membership.- The need for a certain level of realism on both the pilot and ATC side.- Wider ATC coverage, more general ATC standards.- Free basic pilot and controller software (limited functionality , but more than enough to participate).- Allowance of payware developers to create more advanced fuller featured software that can be used on the Network, that they can charge fees for.- Payware sponsorship advertising (startup contributuons etc) etc (to offset the costs of creating and maintaining the system).Not an easy task, but the ability and the resources to do it certainly exist.I think for it to work it'd be crucial to have some of the big names in Flightsim behind it.Regards.Ernie.

[Sekstifire 10]

It would be very bad for online flying if another network came along. We dont need a new network, we need a merger between the already existing networks. As for payware clients not being allowed, VATSIM will not allow anyone to make a profit on the work they do for free (creating, developing and maintaining VATSIM). The payware aspect is not the biggest problem tho, I have written many programs that I have given away for free. The process of developing it and then giving it away was payment enough for me, I just enjoyed doing it. But VATSIM has a policy of no open source clients. This is a very big hurdle. I dont think you'll find many developers willing to spend their time developing something only to have to give away the rights back to vatsim, closed source and all. The whole closed source issue prohibits developers from ganging up on the pilot client problem and developing a modern and solid client. There are many artificial hurdles in the way

[andysim 0]

i used to fly on vatsim all the time and even did a Cross the pond event back in 2009. But I found it very stressfull even with only a few other pilots about. I am mostly to be found flying offline with Radar Contact4 and the PMDG MD-11f +FS2Crew (untill the 737NGX comes out wooot!!) If you have never used Radar Contatct I highly recommend it. Someday Radar contact 5 will come but who knows when =(

[Smoky 7]

Never liked the AI robots.Since about 8 years I fly on both VATSIM and IVAO and I notice IVAO is overtaking VATSIM since a few years with much better user friendly software and lots of more traffic spread out all over the globe. The ATC quality is the same on both networks and you do get to know some interesting people.

[MrSpeaker 122]

Also, maybe the community can start a petition to have VATSIM and IVAO merge? :( :(

Probably will never happen, to many big heads But I would sign one in a second, dividing the community only hurts it.

[Guest 747-fan]

I am not sure what VA was polled but here are our stats for the April 2011 which paint quite a different story:Number of Flights: 1,109 Flown on Vatsim: 884 Flown on IVAO: 197 Flown Offline: 27 I don't have a problem with people flying offline, but IMHO there is nothing like getting together with fellow pilots on any given night have doing a group flight together.

My VA is a bit different:Offline 120,507 flights / 240,909.0 hIVAO 132,199 flights / 247,902.5 hVATSIM 59,308 flights / 116,016.2 hI fly online a lot of the time(both networks), but not always. If I'm offline, I fly without AI. I just don't see the point, but to each his own.

[ErnieAlston 33]

It would be very bad for online flying if another network came along.We dont need a new network, we need a merger between the already existing networks.

Which will not happen, so this is not a viable solution.And even if there was a merger between them most of the problems mentioned including coverage gapswould remain.The current situation will not change unless 1) Controllers are free to plugin at various positionson the fly when the pilot need arises 2) Payware developers are allowed to produce software for the Network, andmake a profit doing it.A complete from the ground up Network has to be created, its the only way IMO.Or we accept the status quo as it is for much of the foreseeable future, which is not a completely bad thing. VATSIM/IVAOdo a good job at what they do within their limitations and restrictions.

As for payware clients not being allowed, VATSIM will not allow anyone to make a profit on the work they do for free (creating, developing and maintaining VATSIM).

My understanding is this profit restriction is not actually VATSIM's but a prohibition of theoriginal developers of Squawkbox,ProController, and the FSD server.A new Network with completely new software would be a way get out from under this restriction.Perhaps even let VATSIM/IVAO operate under it.

I dont think you'll find many developers willing to spend their time developing something only to have to give away the rights back to vatsim, closed source and all.

Right, exactly why a new Network is the way to go. Payware developers, who can sell the work they produce for use the Network would be morethan willing to put in the time developing software for the Network. They are going to get a return ontheir investment.

The whole closed source issue prohibits developers from ganging up on the pilot client problem and developing a modern and solid client. There are many artificial hurdles in the way

You're just making my case man.Once payware devs are allowed to make the clients, they will jump on it big time. All one has to do is lookat the number of registered members in VATSIM/IVAO organizations to see the potential market.Regards.Ernie.