Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Roadburner426

PMDG Announced Global Flight Operations at FSE 2018

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Krister said:

Bob, I would say it's the wrong approach to plan and start a flight and then be disappointed that there is no ATC coverage on VATSIM. What I do is either find a FIR that has a fly-in or  look on a map that shows ATC coverage on VATSIM and then pick a flight based on that. When I started flying on SATCO it opened up a whole new dimension to flightsimming!

I like to fly where and when I want to fly. Right now I am flying the Q400 from Billings Montana to Spokane. ATC and AI all the way. If I was on Vatsim, I would be on Unicomm with nobody anywhere near me. Like watching paint dry. 

Right now the closest Controller on Vatsim to where I am flying is someone in the control tower in Boston....LOL....

Edited by Bobsk8
  • Like 2

 

BOBSK8             MSFS 2020 ,    ,PMDG 737-600-800PMDG DC6 , A2A Comanche, Fenix A320,    Milviz C 310 ,  FSLTL  

TrackIR   Avliasoft EFB2    FSI Panel ,  ATC  by PF3  , A Pilots LIfe V2 ,  CLX PC , Auto FPS

 

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Right now the closest Controller on Vatsim to where I am flying is someone in the control tower in Boston....LOL....

The nearest controller when I fly in the simulation is between my ears.  Since 80% of what you hear from controllers real world is expected it makes it easy just to use the controller in my mind.  I'd like a realistic ATC simulation but it's that 20% that ensures it will probably not happen any time soon.  It would be cool to get data while enroute oceanic and I hope that is something GFO can provide.


Dan Downs KCRP

Share this post


Link to post

Not sure I get the excitement with CPDLC and ACARS. Yes it’s a great feature to have when you need it but it’s not overly used atleast not at my airline. We receive the load sheet via ACARS and that’s pretty much it, we could request weather if we’re going oceanic and occasionally we’ll talk to the company about a technical issue but it’s really not much more than that. And I’d say CPDLC even less, really not that many places have it and if they do it’s really only used to give frequency changes and the occasional direct routing. It is used much more for oceanic crossings but other than that I’m not sure having it in the sim would add much.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, xTiMm_ said:

You should consider to use either VATSIM or IVAO for the future as it is just better than any AI.
As much pilots are flying online, the more ATC you will find over the time. And as much we are online, the more fun it makes.

Concerning the quality of the voice on VATSIM - there will be a change coming. They are working on it.

Hi,

Thank you for your reply.  I understand this sentiment, and I am not a novice with VATSIM.  However, I think of the call systems that you encounter when seeking online service or help with many larger companies.  The natural language intelligence is great.  Further, at least using an USA-oriented example, FAA JO 7110.65 seems all about highly codifying and regulating procedures, language, phraseology and what not. It is within this realm that the AI I'm thinking of excels.  My experience with VATSIM echoes that of others: sporadic across its history, save for organized events.  I would agree with another response here is that having standards-compliant ATC for immersion when and where we want is an inevitability both in reality and in our simming world.

Of course it is a monolithic task, so I am not even close to expecting it tomorrow.  But, I do anticipate seeing it some day.

Edited by ahuimanu
  • Like 1

Jeff Bea

I am an avid globetrotter with my trusty Lufthansa B777F, Polar Air Cargo B744F, and Atlas Air B748F.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, downscc said:

The nearest controller when I fly in the simulation is between my ears.  Since 80% of what you hear from controllers real world is expected it makes it easy just to use the controller in my mind.  I'd like a realistic ATC simulation but it's that 20% that ensures it will probably not happen any time soon.  It would be cool to get data while enroute oceanic and I hope that is something GFO can provide.

I have an Excel spreadsheet too with a random number function.  Depending on the probability of holding or getting vectors at airports (one can use FlightRadar to look at the last 10 flights or so you are simulating to see how often they hold and what happens to them), I have the random number tell me whether I need to hold or not.  E.g. if the probability of holding is 20%, I say that any number less than 0.20 from the random function means that I have to hold.  Same for the amount of time to hold.  I also set up something similar for altitudes going into LHR for entering the holding stack.  Dorky I know, but at least I'm not 100% sure what will happen with regards to holding.

I used to use RC, but you basically know what to expect from it and it doesn't fit every situation.  Tried PF3 and it is so damn confusing to set up, and even when set up properly, does weird things, so I gave up on it.  Dan's right, unfortunately the best controller a the moment is yourself.  Looking on FlightRadar to see what other flights do at the airport can help so you know what to tell yourself to do!  Plus no frequency changes - there's enough to do for one person in a two-person cockpit as it is!  I use the autopilot more often than I'd like because I have to look around and click stuff...  For instance, I tend to wait until fully configured for landing until disconnecting at around 500 - 1000', so I don't get much hand flying practise on approach with configuration changes.  I have to wind the MCP speed down, sometimes set the missed approach altitude, turn lights on etc.

Edited by VHOJT

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, VHOJT said:

 

I used to use RC, but you basically know what to expect from it and it doesn't fit every situation.  Tried PF3 and it is so damn confusing to set up, and even when set up properly, does weird things, so I gave up on it. 

Setting up a flight with Sids and Stars in PF3 takes me no more than about 10 minutes at most. Just a matter of learning how to read charts, and you can use Simbrief to tell you which SIDs and Stars will work for a flight. Like anything else in aviation, a bit of study, and eventually it becomes like second nature. 

  • Like 1

 

BOBSK8             MSFS 2020 ,    ,PMDG 737-600-800PMDG DC6 , A2A Comanche, Fenix A320,    Milviz C 310 ,  FSLTL  

TrackIR   Avliasoft EFB2    FSI Panel ,  ATC  by PF3  , A Pilots LIfe V2 ,  CLX PC , Auto FPS

 

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Setting up a flight with Sids and Stars in PF3 takes me no more than about 10 minutes at most. Just a matter of learning how to read charts, and you can use Simbrief to tell you which SIDs and Stars will work for a flight. Like anything else in aviation, a bit of study, and eventually it becomes like second nature. 

Hi Bob,

I know how to read charts and select SIDs/STARs, and have done a lot of reading on how to input a flight plan into PF3.  I probably need more practise at getting PF3 to work to be honest, but I'm not really interested in spending the time doing it.  I already take 1-3 hours planning a long-haul, and by then I've had enough and am ready to get flying.

Edited by VHOJT

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Richard McDonald Woods said:

I am proposing that, when an FIR is not being controlled, the AI would act as the FIR controller to exchange messages with pilots flying in that FIR. Should a controller come on duty, the AI would stop acting and the controller would start acting as though from an as yet uncontrolled FIR. This would give the pilot a supported experience in what are usually unmanned FIRs.

I'll be honest Richard, I'd find some kind of AI nagging me in the absence of a Vatsim controller to be thoroughly irritating at best. I cannot imagine one thing "it" could tell me that would actually be useful and that I didn't already know. It sounds like (and I may have misunderstood) an awful lot of development work for something which would most likely be ignored as being of no value.


Bill Casey

wpigeon.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Bill,

There would be zero 'nagging' from ATC. My idea is to enable the pilot to initiate messages to which an 'intelligent' response is received. The types of suitable messages to which a response is possible will become clearer as Kyle firms up his CPDLC design.

It would be a great pity if, as Dan experiences, pilots are given a comprehensive CPDLC function to only have no ATC interactions for many long segments. My AI proposal attempts to bring an element of CPDLC interaction when no real ATC is on duty.

Kind regards, Richard

  • Like 1

Cheers, Richard

Intel Core i7-7700K @ 4.2 GHz, 16 GB memory, 1 TB SSD, GTX 1080 Ti, 28" 4K display

Win10-64, P3Dv5, PMDG 748 & 777, Milviz KA350i, ASP3D, vPilot, Navigraph, PFPX, ChasePlane, Orbx 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, BillC said:

I'll be honest Richard, I'd find some kind of AI nagging me in the absence of a Vatsim controller to be thoroughly irritating at best. I cannot imagine one thing "it" could tell me that would actually be useful and that I didn't already know. It sounds like (and I may have misunderstood) an awful lot of development work for something which would most likely be ignored as being of no value.

Kind of like a bicycle for a fish, is how it strikes me.

  • Like 1

 

BOBSK8             MSFS 2020 ,    ,PMDG 737-600-800PMDG DC6 , A2A Comanche, Fenix A320,    Milviz C 310 ,  FSLTL  

TrackIR   Avliasoft EFB2    FSI Panel ,  ATC  by PF3  , A Pilots LIfe V2 ,  CLX PC , Auto FPS

 

Share this post


Link to post

Hey folks,

I am one of those excited about this product. I really like this idea of "sharing".I hate it to arbitrarily pick routes, especially since I always tend to fly to the same places. It kind of transform the Flight Sim World into it's own world/universe. Forgive me for not reading every single post here and the ideas and wishes I am about to propose might even be within the product, but I'd like to share them anyway:

What I am really hoping for is some form of AI-integration. To have every (with the ability to decrease/increase level for performance reasons) aircraft within GFO shown as AI in the sim. Imagine the immersion of parking plane X at the gate and then later flying away on plane Y seeing plane X exactly where you left it or perhaps someone else flying off somewhere with plane X. I could imagine some sort of interface where you could easily assign any AI-aircraft in your database to a particular aircraft in GFO. The only problem I see right now with this is when flying online... you might see some conflicts like planes passing through each other or parked over each other (the solution here would be to switch off AI from GFO), but I guess it's something where a solution can be thought of in the future.

Another thing, which at the same time is a question from me. In the presentation I saw that you would pick up a plane exactly where the previous pilot has parked it. What's the story of people using different Add-Ons/Afcads (e.g. someone parked at EGLL gate X on UK2000 and someone else wants to take-off using Aerosoft EGLL)

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Bobsk8 said:

Kind of like a bicycle for a fish, is how it strikes me.

I saw you make this comment on YouTube or Facebook somewhere. I'm kinda baffled as to how/why you would make this comparison. "Not for me" sure, but "bicycle for a fish" makes no sense at all. That implies it's something someone not only wouldn't use, but couldn't use. Not only is this misleading, it ignores the literal fact that these functions exist in reality, are based in reality, and used in reality.

In other words, your argument is literally akin to saying "ah, yeah, PMDG just wasting their resources again on that darned weather radar thing...such a bicycle for a fish." Again, I get that some people might have no interest in realism in various realms, but I'm confused as to why people are making GFO offerings out to be objectionable. They add realism. If you want to ignore that realism and not use it - great. That's your choice. Criticizing us for adding realism would be like criticizing us for working to add weather radar like we did a few years ago. You don't wanna use that weather radar? Great. Don't.

...but don't criticize us for working to respond to the requests of those who - for years - have asked us for these functions.

If it's not for you, that's fine. If you don't like bikes, that's fine, but we aren't selling those bikes to fish. We're selling them to humans. Let's bring it back to reality, honesty, and facts, please.

54 minutes ago, OSJJ1985 said:

Another thing, which at the same time is a question from me. In the presentation I saw that you would pick up a plane exactly where the previous pilot has parked it. What's the story of people using different Add-Ons/Afcads (e.g. someone parked at EGLL gate X on UK2000 and someone else wants to take-off using Aerosoft EGLL)

If both developers are modeling reality, then it shouldn't be too much of an issue. We've discussed it at various points in development, where we may add in a note about which scenery was used by the last person, but overall, crash detection should be off (in general - not only for this case), and there may be slight variations between sceneries.

  • Like 1

Kyle Rodgers

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

The only problem I see right now with this is when flying online... you might see some conflicts like planes passing through each other or parked over each other...

I remember watching several Matt Davies YouTube videos when he was flying online with VATSIM, and I noticed every time that some of the other planes were not on the correct taxiways (or parked properly at the gates). I realised that this was because the VATSIM users that were online at the time were not using the same version of a particular airport, and therefore the taxiways/runways/parking spots did not match. Quite an immersion killer in my opinion.


Christopher Low

UK2000 Beta Tester

FSBetaTesters3.png

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

I saw you make this comment on YouTube or Facebook somewhere. I'm kinda baffled as to how/why you would make this comparison. "Not for me" sure, but "bicycle for a fish" makes no sense at all. That implies it's something someone not only wouldn't use, but couldn't use. Not only is this misleading, it ignores the literal fact that these functions exist in reality, are based in reality, and used in reality.

In other words, your argument is literally akin to saying "ah, yeah, PMDG just wasting their resources again on that darned weather radar thing...such a bicycle for a fish." Again, I get that some people might have no interest in realism in various realms, but I'm confused as to why people are making GFO offerings out to be objectionable. They add realism. If you want to ignore that realism and not use it - great. That's your choice. Criticizing us for adding realism would be like criticizing us for working to add weather radar like we did a few years ago. You don't wanna use that weather radar? Great. Don't.

I guess you can chalk it up to "different opinions". 


 

BOBSK8             MSFS 2020 ,    ,PMDG 737-600-800PMDG DC6 , A2A Comanche, Fenix A320,    Milviz C 310 ,  FSLTL  

TrackIR   Avliasoft EFB2    FSI Panel ,  ATC  by PF3  , A Pilots LIfe V2 ,  CLX PC , Auto FPS

 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I guess you can chalk it up to "different opinions". 

Exactly, some will like it, some will not.  Some use the Sim for procedures training or IFR practice and some use the Sim to get as real as it gets, including something like GFO.  I personally won’t use GFO, but I can definitely understand why some will.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...