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

[PIC007 82]

Al, you hit the nail on the head. In fact, you sound exactly like my X employer! :( We lasted 13 years before closing the doors last August, which is an extraordinary amount of time for an online flight game. During that time we had a max of around 30 paid employees, up to 60 volunteers, and many thousands of customers. The amount of money and effort involved to get a paid service up and running, not to mention maintaining it on a 24/7/365 basis, is way out of reach unless you are a 'Microsoft' type operation, or win the 'Megabucks' lottery.Of course thats not to say someone here isn't in that position, and if they are, I am available hehehehehHere is a link to someone attempting to do what is being discussed although I believe it's geared towards real world pilots and controllers. He has a long way to go but who knows, he might pull it off:http://pilotedge.net/page/home

[Squishy 0]

It's just that I believe so many more people would fly online if1) There would be a proper client (=no fatal errors/bugs, no FSAA-kill, no incompatibility with add-ons2) There would be greater coverage. This can be achieved by i.e. merging with IVAO, or simply because of point 1).

[ErnieAlston 33]

Al, you hit the nail on the head. In fact, you sound exactly like my X employer! :( We lasted 13 years before closing the doors last August, which is an extraordinary amount of time for an online flight game. During that time we had a max of around 30 paid employees, up to 60 volunteers, and many thousands of customers. The amount of money and effort involved to get a paid service up and running, not to mention maintaining it on a 24/7/365 basis, is way out of reach unless you are a 'Microsoft' type operation, or win the 'Megabucks' lottery.

You're waaaay overthinking this.The working model for this already exists as free services (ie VATSIM/IVAO) , so no way an online ATC system is going to be that costly or need anywhere near the amount of people you have mentioned to operate it.This is not a MMOG type system, not even close.The number of users on an online ATC system would be a tiny fraction of what these MMOG services have to support.Regards.Ernie.

[Sekstifire 10]

It's just that I believe so many more people would fly online if1) There would be a proper client (=no fatal errors/bugs, no FSAA-kill, no incompatibility with add-ons....

I have no fatal errors, I have FSAA and all my addons are compatible with FSInn. I dont think many people experience any of the issues you mentioned.

[protzler 0]

You're waaaay overthinking this.The working model for this already exists as free services (ie VATSIM/IVAO) , so no way an online ATC system is going to be that costly or need anywhere near the amount of people you have mentioned to operate it.This is not a MMOG type system, not even close.The number of users on an online ATC system would be a tiny fraction of what these MMOG services have to support.Regards.Ernie.

With all due respect, Ernie, I think you're waaaay underthinking it. Even with a free service, you're still going to have to support it...though I guess you could always say, "If you want support, you will have to pay XXX amount, monthly." It's not the way I would do it, but it is an option...instructionAre you going to limit the airfields that one can get ATC services at in the free version? I'm still not clear on how you would offer ATC services at all those small fields with towers. For example, I want to take off from Picacho Stage Field in Ariona in a H64. It's a small little stage field (that has a tower!) by Pinal in Arizona. No one wants to man that, and if you had somebody that was controlling that airfield, along with 100 other small fields, the instructions wouldn't be realistic to that location. For free, this would be acceptable. However, if I would NOT pay for that. I could get the same experience (offline, for free, with no resources being used by additional programs) using the built in ATC. That leads me into your idea that you could have a few controllers covering all positions for every facility all over the world. I don't see the manning to be sufficient; even with a 'pay for your subscription through controlling' program. Good luck on 24hr manning for all those towers, centers, approaches, flight following, etc! You couldn't really say, "Well, it's past 9pm local! Towers closed." since I may want to switch the time in my sim to 2pm and do pattern work. Again, lets say at Picacho.If you have a plan for all that then awesome! But I don't think it'd be easy. This is all in addition to what the guy that actually did it already said!

[Chock 17,769]

Nope, it's not an MMO, but the thing with MMOs is that they can work with merely a server and NPCs for interaction, plus a few GMs to handle problems. Most airports have several frequencies; clearance, approach, ground, departure etc, that's four people right there for one airport, just to get off the deck. And unless those four are prepared to work for 24 hours every day without a break, then it will really be 20 people, for just one airport, all of whom are going to work unpaid? Or if paid, a subscription has to support this for 40,000 airports all around the world plus all the centres, and Atlantic and Pacific control?That's what people would expect for their subscription, and it's a nice idea, but it is simply not feasible, because you'd basically have to replicate the real world of ATC for it to have any benefit over using Radar Contact. Even if you have someone work several centres and airfields, you are still looking at a massive number of people, and for a subscription service to actually be reliable, they would almost certainly have to be paid in order to guarantee their commitment to actually showing up regularly to work the system.This brings us back to why Vatsim etc have patchy coverage in the first place, great if you want to fly from LAX to JFK, but fly from Toncontin to Reykjavic and get the same seamless service? It's just not going to happen.Al

[ErnieAlston 33]

Are you going to limit the airfields that one can get ATC services at in the free version? I'm still not clear on how you would offer ATC services at all those small fields with towers. For example, I want to take off from Picacho Stage Field in Ariona in a H64. It's a small little stage field (that has a tower!) by Pinal in Arizona. No one wants to man that, and if you had somebody that was controlling that airfield, along with 100 other small fields, the instructions wouldn't be realistic to that location. For free, this would be acceptable. However, if I would NOT pay for that. I could get the same experience (offline, for free, with no resources being used by additional programs) using the built in ATC.

En-Route Center Controllers my friend.In the absense of a Tower Center Controller can cover every airport in that airspace. You don't need separate Controllers for ground and Tower when the traffic is light, you'd just have abunch of people sitting around doing nothing waiting for planes to come to them.Even the the real world, there are airports with no Ground Tower or approach to depart and arrive from them (IFR), you have to contact the Center.Now regarding your example flight from Picacho Stage Field.In the likely absense of PCA Tower you'd contact Albuqueque Center (assuming IFR). Center would give you your clearance, squawk code etc.

and if you had somebody that was controlling that airfield, along with 100 other small fields, the instructions wouldn't be realistic to that location. For free, this would be acceptable. However, if I would NOT pay for that. I could get the same experience (offline, for free, with no resources being used by additional programs) using the built in ATC.

Of course the Instructions will be realistic. The phraselogy would be exactly the same as if there was a Tower there.It'd just be given by the Center Controller.If you still disagree, I recommend you observe on IVAO/VATSIM and see it in practice.

That leads me into your idea that you could have a few controllers covering all positions for every facility all over the world. I don't see the manning to be sufficient; even with a 'pay for your subscription through controlling' program. Good luck on 24hr manning for all those towers, centers, approaches, flight following, etc! You couldn't really say, "Well, it's past 9pm local! Towers closed." since I may want to switch the time in my sim to 2pm and do pattern work. Again, lets say at Picacho.

See my earlier mention of 'floating Controllers'.You move Controllers to different positions as they are needed, you allow them to work multiple positions at the same time.As I mentioned before in my early SATCO days, that what we did. I'd have one plane going into MSP, and anotherplane going into DEN. I'd just have 2 logins, and 2 ProController screen opens, and have each screencentered over MSP and DEN respectively. With 2 planes its not difficult to do at all.So lets sat you have 1 plane arriving at Memphis, no ATC there. The Controller working Albuquerque, who has maybe 2 overfights, he's not busy he's just watching 2 planes overfly his airspace, he won't even say anything to them for an hour when they reach his boundary end. He starts another session as a Controller in Memphis, and handles the arrival into Memphis while at the same time monitoring his 2 overflights, and will still have time to handle any departuresor arrivals into his airspace.If Albuquerque gets too busy with local activities to handle the KMEM arrival, there's another Center Controller somewhere who is not busy who he can hand him off to at any time.With floating Controllers you can handle all the traffic around the world with a small number of Controllers.All we need is a Controller Client that allows one Controller to view multiple airspaces and man multiple positionsat the same time. Not very difficult to accomplish from a programming standpoint.We'd also need some sort of notification system, so that as soon as a Flight Plan is filed or an aircraft is a certain distance from its arrival, the available Controllers are made aware that location will need ATC service for the pending departure or arrival. It needs some coordination for sure, but its certainly doable.Let me describe the notification concept further, using your PCA example.You file a flight plan. Once that happens the system checks if your departure has ATC coverage (ie at least a Center).If there is no ATC coverage currently for PCA. The system checks all the Center Controllers online in the US and makes a request to ones with none or a small number of aircraft assigned to them. If the Controller accepts the request he/she makes a new login as ABQ_CTR, and waits for your call requesting clarance. If the Controller declines the assigment requestthe system makes the request to next Center Controller etc. Once a Controller accepts the assignment, their ID shows upon your ATC list as ABQ_CTR with a frequency, and you are able to contact them for clearance.Regards.Ernie.

[PIC007 82]

You're waaaay overthinking this.The working model for this already exists as free services (ie VATSIM/IVAO) , so no way an online ATC system is going to be that costly or need anywhere near the amount of people you have mentioned to operate it.This is not a MMOG type system, not even close.The number of users on an online ATC system would be a tiny fraction of what these MMOG services have to support.Regards.Ernie.

Sorry Ernie, but I have to dissagree with ya. The second you add money to the equation, customer expectations go up, WAY up. In order to justify the costs involved, and keep the price reasonable, you would have to have thousands of subscribers. Once (and IF) that happens, customers will not only expect, but demand, top notch service. I can tell you from experiance, that even with the best of intentions, volunteers are not going to provide the service users will insist on. That leaves you with one option, paid employees (sub contractors). The only way around that is to provide 2 services, one free, one paid. Even then you will have daily headaches that have to be dealt with.I truly wish that the proposed scenerio was possible, but without a significent investment, it aint gonna happen.

[Sekstifire 10]

...All we need is a Controller Client that allows one Controller to view multiple airspaces and man multiple positionsat the same time. Not very difficult to accomplish from a programming standpoint....

Having one controller monitoring and controlling on two different frequencies would be impossible, as pilots would step on each others transmissions. The only way something like this would work would be if both centers used the same frequency (one frequency per controller).

[ErnieAlston 33]

Having one controller monitoring and controlling on two different frequencies would be impossible, as pilots would step on each others transmissions. The only way something like this would work would be if both centers used the same frequency (one frequency per controller).

The Controller is handling 2 (or more) separate positions, but all his radio transmissions are on one frequency.Regards.Ernie.

[ErnieAlston 33]

Sorry Ernie, but I have to dissagree with ya. The second you add money to the equation, customer expectations go up, WAY up. In order to justify the costs involved, and keep the price reasonable, you would have to have thousands of subscribers.

1) Of course expectations go up when money is involved. But there also are ways to manage expectations. One is clearly letting them know exactly what services they will be getting for the cost.But I don't think people expect FAA rated Controllers to be manning the scope for $20 per year. Just like no-oneexpects a 737 addon aircraft for FSX to be exactly like the real 737 in every way for $60.You can however provide basic Air Traffic Control services at a reasonable level of realism at a low cost. But I seriuously doubt most would expect an FAA or EuroControl level of precision in every way for $20 a year. What they 'would' expect for that kind of subscription fee however is something more than they can get from the free services, that being primarily better client software and better ATC area coverage.2) The costs are not that high. How do you think VATSIM/IVAO is able to provide free ATC services ? Someone is paying for it. If it was grossly expensive no way it could be free, they are operating mostly on donations, And both organizations have thousands of members.Yes it will cost more, but those costs will be covered by the subscription fees. And again payware devs will be contributing to the system as its the platform they are able to sell the client software they create from.

I can tell you from experiance, that even with the best of intentions, volunteers are not going to provide the service users will insist on. That leaves you with one option, paid employees (sub contractors). The only way around that is to provide 2 services, one free, one paid. Even then you will have daily headaches that have to be dealt with.

Yes I already agreed Controllers would probably have to be compensated in a subscription service model.But People are already Controlling for free, these are hobbyists they aren't controlling for the money.The compensation is merely used as incentive to get Controllers to stay to stay on longer and perhaps to get them to log on at scheduled times. They won't be paying the rent with the small compensation they might receive for being a Controller. Regards.Ernie.

[PIC007 82]

Ernie, I am not talking about just controllers, there is an entire support team that would be needed: First and foremost, IT specialists that can write and refine the code and maintain it. Numerous servers and access to them if they crash or develope a problem. Customer support for not only the daily issues that will surely happen, but also for any billing issues that develope. Website developement and maintenance, online management to ensure things are running smoothly and no abuse, the list goes on, and many will need to be available 24/7/365 so you are talking 3 shifts.I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but the project is much larger then just having controllers, even though just that part will be huge. On a limited geographical basis, I can see a possibility. Even at that, $20 a year aint gonna 'fly', $20 a month would still require thousands of subs to cover expenses, not to mention a profit. Monthly overhead excluding paid controllers would be in excess of 20K, and the more servers and bandwidth, the higher it goes.

[Squishy 0]

I have no fatal errors, I have FSAA and all my addons are compatible with FSInn. I dont think many people experience any of the issues you mentioned.

1) I guess you're not using SB in module mode (in-game FSX), or don't fly 2+ hours.2) I guess you use nHancer? Well it doesnt work on ATi.3) Wilco 737 isn't compatible with FSinn. Now it isn't that much of a problem because NGX is gonna be released any day now. But 2 years ago it wasn't and there was no proper 737 with FMC for FSX.What this meant was that i couldn't fly a 737 online in FSX, and was forced to fly long-haul if I wanted to stay realistic.

[Luke 782]

Even at that, $20 a year aint gonna 'fly', $20 a month would still require thousands of subs to cover expenses, not to mention a profit. Monthly overhead excluding paid controllers would be in excess of 20K, and the more servers and bandwidth, the higher it goes.

Just how expensive do you think infrastructure is these days?Cheers!Luke

[ErnieAlston 33]

First and foremost, IT specialists that can write and refine the code and maintain it.

The server code for this network is not complex it will not be difficult or costly to maintain.There's only a small amount of data between sent between the clients and the server in packets.You do not need a team of IT specialists to maintain it. If the server software its written correctly the first time the maintenance should be be low once things are stable.The sponsorship of the payware devs cover the startup costs for the network, this investmentis returned to them in the form of subscription fees and or selling the Pilot and Controllersoftware, of which eventually they will gain profits from.

Numerous servers and access to them if they crash or develope a problem.

The Operational group will only need a few servers. The Service will give free subscriptions (and perhaps a few extra bucks) to those individuals willing to host the server software on their host machines. Which will provide the Network with more than enough servers, as the server software will not require dedicated machines.The same servers will also handle voice comms. That technology is very low cost.

Customer support for not only the daily issues that will surely happen, but also for any billing issues that develope.

They'll be some customer support required, but it won't cost much more than what some payware devsnow pay for customer support of their FS addon products.

Website developement and maintenance,

Website creation and maintenance will cost no more than it does for current payware addons.

online management to ensure things are running smoothly and no abuse, the list goes on, and many will need to be available 24/7/365 so you are talking 3 shifts.

This will be overkill for this type of network.At most they'll need to be a few moderators around to respond to issues that may ariseand make sure everyone is playing nice.It likely will need less moderation than VATSIM/IVAO has because the subscription costwill deter a lot of the would be troublemakers. I suspect some additional costs will be needed in the area of security however.

I'm not trying to rain on your parade

You're not. I just don't think you understand what we are proposing.

, but the project is much larger then just having controllers, even though just that part will be huge. On a limited geographical basis, I can see a possibility. Even at that, $20 a year aint gonna 'fly', $20 a month would still require thousands of subs to cover expenses, not to mention a profit. Monthly overhead excluding paid controllers would be in excess of 20K, and the more servers and bandwidth, the higher it goes.

The Network itself would not be a profit Center. The only ones who would get a profit in this are the payware Devs whocreate and sell the additonal client software, and they would be partly sponsoring the network. Any profits from thesubscription fees will either go into improving the infrastructure, or reducing the subscription costs.Most Controllers won't be paid, the subscription fee allows you to be on the network as either a pilotor Controller. Most will just Control for the hobby aspect of it in their spare time a few hours a month.The only Controller who would be compensated will be those who either put in a lot of hoursor agree to plug it at scheduled times/shifts.And even at that the compensation will be low. They might be able to pick up a new scenery packagewith it or a new addon aircraft. More likely get their subscription fee waved. The compensation is merely an incentive tool, to go above and beyond with the average member would do.All Controllers will be subscription paying members like everyone else. They will be flying online as pilots as well.Server costs will not be that expensive for what this software will be doing. You get a low cost PC,install Linux on it, install the server software and the voice server software, do some configs etc etcand its up and running.I can't see the cost of a dedicated server being more than a few thousand dollars per year.Regards.Ernie.