Well if a controller was online, they should simply issue a re-clearance for the appropriate route.

 

If there is no controller online, who really gives a toss what the other pilot is doing...Just let them do their thing. Does someone filing a wrong route when your not the controller really play on your concious that much? If im the controller and there is a pilot with a stupid route, yeah I get a bit worked up cause I have to get the right one for him, but if theres someone on the otherside of the world with a wrong route I really couldn't care less.

Outside of Cross the Pond there is no need for an OTS on Vatsim. Heck, you could do away with the cruising order and probably never hit anybody.

I have no problem paying for this service, but I expect it to have a fair price! By that, I mean not over 30 bucks a year.

 

But, what concerns me, and has been talked about in this topic, is what will happen 4 years from now, when the developers go do other things with their life, and the server get left alone, maybe even deactivated? I can't not remember Flight Operation Center, the most realistic Flight Planning software ever, that is now as useful as a rock, because there's no NAVDATA and Weather for it anymore. At least we won't have the Navdata problem with this one!

I DID NOT install FOC to my new rig. The only reason I still have the "package" is

to remind me of the distaste I felt at the service I was subjected to on their forum.

Never again. For me,  they occupy a place of dishonor right beside captainsin,

FOC was a great program in its 'heyday'.

 

However years on, it has suffered severe isolation from the developers and is now just gathering dust on my HDD. After using PFPX, I am happy to say that I am happy with FOC gathering dust and PFPX being dusted off everyday by my extended use of the excellent software.

 

 

...but I expect it to have a fair price! By that, I mean not over 30 bucks a year....

 

Well I agree about willingness to pay, but the product itself costs about $35.  To pay for servers, as this is supposed to be for, I expect more the $10-15.  The data itself is freely available and I can't possibly place such a demand on the servers to warrant 1 month worth of high speed internet that covers everything (at the $30).

Curious...but best left alone. We will never agree. Cheers.

Curious indeed. There is certainly room for argument regarding weather and notam data which (for now) is freely available from a variety of (primarily) U.S. government sources. But, as I pointed out in a previous post - that may change some day - depending on how the never-ending budget and spending battles in the U. S. Congress turn out.

 

But in the case of navigation data, there really is no argument. At present, there is NO free source of airport/navaid/airways data available from the U.S. government or any other national agency. So, if current, accurate AIRAC data is to be made available to the FS community - someone, somewhere, is going to have to invest both time and money to purchase the monthly AIRAC files from a commercial source, recompile that data into the many formats used by FS add-ons, store, serve and distribute said data to end users.

 

If YOU don't want to pay for that data... Then who SHOULD? Do you believe, for instance, that companies such as PMDG should provide monthly AIRAC data for their products from now to the end of time, all for the base cost of the original aircraft add-on? Or do you think that some kind soul should spend hundreds or thousands of dollars each month to purchase commercial Nav data from providers like LIDO, recompile it, then distribute it for free, out of the goodness of his heart?

 

As it happens, Richard Stefan used to do exactly that - compiling and distributing monthly Nav updates, at no cost to end users, as a service to the flight sim community. For that, he deserves great praise. But at the time Richard was providing that service, he DID have a free data source - the DAFIF data file distributed monthly by the U.S. D.O.D.

 

DAFIF does not exist anymore - it went away in 2007, and after that time Richard was no longer able to offer his free service - it evolved into what is now the Navigraph payware Navdata service.

 

It's fine to say you'll "never agree" but on what basis do you hold such an opinion? If you, as an end-user don't want to pay for Nav data updates, then who, exactly, should be funding those updates on your behalf?

Something I'm partially cross-posting.

 

I'll be the first one to say that if the developer is entering into a contract with the end user to provide on-demand access to specific data, for a set price, given the nature of what PFPX provides, I can understand it based on supporting network/bandwidth infrastructure.

 

Howevever, while I'd be willing to pay "some level" of a subscription fee for access to their data servers, I'm left with three issues that cause me concern.

 

- The data they want to the charge (via bandwidth) to provide is freely available. While it's a pain in the a** to bring up the multiple sources for it indivvidually, I can somewhat see a requirement to charge the end user a fee to access this data in a "one stop shopping" environment.

- They (developer) are ALREADY charging a subscription to use their product. What good is RW weather in flight planning without real world navigation data? I already am required to pay for Navigraph/AS data to make full use of this product. Now I need to pay for another subscritption on top of that.

- The communications from this developer have been lacking to say the least. But to to place a "subscription" caveat in their manual, a week before release, with no mention on their website with regards to said subscription... Very, VERY, pi## poor, and hope they don't open themselves up to a lawsuit for fradulant advertising if they keep their website product description current.

 

I'll wait to see how things shake out... I'm VERY excitied about the upcoming release.. However, this last minute sleight of hand has me concerned.

 

And to those that argue about cost of real world data vs what we pay for Navigraph... I invite you to consider safety of flight requirements with regards to data before bringing up cost differences...

 

Cheers,

Its not officially released, so how can anything be set in stone as to the logistics of it all, whether 6 months previous or a week previous. Perhaps those kinds of business negotiations were not done till these last few weeks, and only then were decided on whether there would be a subscription fee. I dont care for it, but if its quite reasonable, then it makes sense. Bandwidth, and server costs are not cheap. 

 

Its  also a fairly large variable when doing a flight plan as to weather particularly with winds because they can shift around storms. You wont find a single real world flight plan that says divert at this point because of TS ahead 20 miles. So weather in FSX being what it is as not entirely accurate presents somewhat of challenge when you are dealing with real world data. I have never come across thunderheads rising 30,000 ft in FSX so never a need to divert when in reality it shouldve been based on the real world weather. Plus there is no proper radar. 

 

That all said, it will be interesting to mimic real world dispatches and flight plans a little more closely and having a OFP to check fuel burn will make it a little less boring at cruise on a 10 hour flight. 

We all, but perhaps a few, think that it is ok to charge a reasonable amount for a service provided.

 

But, in the FS world, you don't actually have to pay for anything, if you lower your expectations a little bit.

 

You can have a free WX program, download free charts from all over the world and use free scenery and aircraft.

 

That is what is great with this hobby. I use thousands of USD per year on this hobby and I am enjoying it, but for those who can't, I am sure they enjoy it just as much.

 

The mistake made by Flightsimsoft, from a marketing standpoint, is the failing to recongnize how negative it would feel to "impose" a running cost on a product after it has been "sold in".

 

It is all about perception, if an annual fee for keeping/using the data from their servers was sold in as an innovative option, from the beginning, I guess there would have been less of a discussion.

 

When that's said, I'll get PFPX on its release day, lock, stock and barrel, no doubt about it

Bandwidth, and server costs are not cheap.

 

That is extremely true, but the problem is that the PFPX server isn't needed at all (based on currently available info). Lets go through these point by point:

 

- Airport Weather (METAR) and Forecasts (TAF)

 

Opus, ProATC, FSC and FSFK already download this data directly to your computer. No server or subscrition needed.

 

- Accurate Upper Wind Forecast Model

 

Opus and FSFK already download this data directly to your computer. No server or subscription needed.

 

- Notices to Airman (NOTAMs)

 

SimBrief.com includes NOTAMs in the OFP. As the service is free (including the server bandwith), I would guess that NOTAMs can be accessed for free.

 

- North Atlantic Tracks (NATs), Pacific Organised Tracks (PACOTs) and Australian Organised Tracks (AUSOTs)

 

FSBuild and FSC already download NATs and PACOTs directly to your computer. No server needed for them. I'm not sure about AUSOTs.

 

---

 

My point being?

 

If others have been able to do this without the need for a server. Why do we suddenly have to pay for the same data, that yesterday was free?

Jarkko, good points indeed, exept that you don't have to pay for the same data, it is an option to have access all that data directly on Flightsimsofts server so it can be pushed to your PFPX. You don't pay for the data, you pay for the accessability.

 

That is why I feel that the marketing of this option is a bit poor, in stead of sneaking it in, they should have gone out and offered it as an optitional "innovation".

Im sure AS2012 doesnt have any subscriptions either,

Per the post in the aerosoft forums, PFPX annual subscription will cost €14,90 (incl. EU VAT)

 

 

There have been some – legitimate – concerns about the so called ‘server subscription‘ in PFPX.
I’ll now explain what this subscription is required for, why we have introduced such a subscription and what it will cost.

General

PFPX uses several types of data to provide real-time information directly into the program. These data are collected from various sources, processed and formatted by our servers and automatically distributed to your local PFPX device.

These data are: Winds, METAR, TAF, Tracks and NOTAMs.

Providing this up-to-date real-time data produces quite a large amount of server data traffic.

 

Server Subscription

Beginning with the initial activation, a (free) server subscription for 365 days is automatically configured. After this period, the subscription can be extended by purchasing additional server subscription time.
 

What if my subscription expires?

If you elect NOT to extend the server subscription, PFPX will still be fully functional, but without real-time data such as Winds, METAR, TAF, Tracks and NOTAMs.
Other sources, like ActiveSky, RealEnvironment Extreme and your saved weather data and tracks will still be functional!

You can elect to extend your subscription at any time, even if it already has expired!

Subscription cost

The price for an additional 365 day subscription period will be €14,90 (incl. EU VAT)

See more here

Thanks for the Info James :good:

$20 us dollars for a year is not that bad.  I spend $30 a year for navigraph so this isn't the end of the world. 

 

I spend $15 a day just on my bad habit of cigarettes and coffee.