PMDG Announced Global Flight Operations at FSE 2018

[Ephedrin 418]

44 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

METAR/TAF/ATIS, [...] requires communication through the server [...]

Kyle,

could you please explain this a little bit? On other addons, (I think I can name them here as everyone knows it anyway, FSL Airbus, Q400, QW 787, upcoming AS Airbus) the weather reports are available within the regular addon using different data sources. 

But it is my understanding that most addons use the weather data provided by Active Sky (please correct me) and now you tell us the DATIS will require the data to be taken from your servers. euhm, why? For me this sounds like I can't fly in summer when it's winter and vice versa. Will we not have to use a weather addon when using the GFO?

Some *more* clarification would be appreciated, you know, we're curious now ^^

Cheers

[reubenjprevost 1]

1 hour ago, scandinavian13 said:

METAR/TAF/ATIS, no - anything that requires communication through the server is limited to subscribers. I think we've left the OOOI times page exposed, as we currently have that in the 744, and we didn't want to remove functionality that's already out there.

I'm wondering about this also. Are you pulling the ATIS from the VATSIM/IVAO/PE servers or directly from arinc to get the real-world D-ATIS? If it is the latter, then I would understand the subscription cost. I imagine getting access to arinc's data is not cheap. 

Either way, I'm excited about this project and can't wait to be a part of the pilot community that it creates. 

Another question about the CPDLC. Will controllers on PE/VATSIM/IVAO/POSCON have have access to this so that they can send relevant information to pilots?

Edited June 11, 2018 by reubenjprevost

[scandinavian13 5,192]

33 minutes ago, Ephedrin said:

could you please explain this a little bit? On other addons, (I think I can name them here as everyone knows it anyway, FSL Airbus, Q400, QW 787, upcoming AS Airbus) the weather reports are available within the regular addon using different data sources. 

Not sure how they do it, but we provide people an option. Either way, the weather request is realistically routed through our server, like any other ACARS request would be.

36 minutes ago, Ephedrin said:

But it is my understanding that most addons use the weather data provided by Active Sky (please correct me) and now you tell us the DATIS will require the data to be taken from your servers. euhm, why? For me this sounds like I can't fly in summer when it's winter and vice versa. Will we not have to use a weather addon when using the GFO?

Why do people do the whole "euhm/um/uhm" thing...? It's so...inappropriate. Am I missing something, or is it not meant to display indignance, impatience, or subtle disrespect?
(I'm not saying I'm owed any of that, but I find its use to be odd...particularly when asking things of people that one would seemingly wish would be given.)

 

Most add-ons use weather data from ActiveSky for weather radar (from my understanding). Anyone can send wind data in for our product, provided they properly write to the file. How any of those other products get weather data is beyond me. I didn't make those add-ons, and I'm also not entirely sure how flexible those products are to your given scenario (have you flown off-season, and requested weather via your listed add-ons?). Ours will be flexible, provided you choose your sim or ActiveSky as your source.

Right now, users have the option (as was shown in the screenshot of the presentation - not sure how visible it was), to use the sim's weather, ActiveSky (so far - meaning they're the only ones we've worked with so far), and real world. Real world weather requests go through our server, the server fetches and creates the report, and delivers it back.

Sure, weather reports are simple in the context of weather reports alone, but our system gives you flexibility, and is part of the larger, and more complex ACARS paradigm.

41 minutes ago, reubenjprevost said:

I'm wondering about this also. Are you pulling the ATIS from the VATSIM/IVAO/PE servers or directly from arinc to get the real-world D-ATIS? If it is the latter, then I would understand the subscription cost. I imagine getting access to arinc's data is not cheap. 

Why would we pull weather data from VATSIM/IVAO/PE? Get it from an actual source.

41 minutes ago, reubenjprevost said:

Will controllers on PE/VATSIM/IVAO/POSCON have have access to this so that they can send relevant information to pilots?

This would be the entire point of CPDLC, no?

[reubenjprevost 1]

4 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

Why would we pull weather data from VATSIM/IVAO/PE? Get it from an actual source.

Thanks for the answer! I agree.  

Here's another question that you can answer when you have time. When I control on vatsim, I publish a D-ATIS that pilots can choose to listen to or read. From your answer, I see that you are pulling atis data from the real sources. What if the real ATIS and my ATIS are publishing different arrival/departure runways? 

[Ephedrin 418]

2 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

Why do people do the whole "euhm/um/uhm" thing...? It's so...inappropriate. Am I missing something, or is it not meant to display indignance, impatience, or subtle disrespect?

No it was meant to lighten the mood in here a bit, the whole thread was so impolite, I wanted to sound a bit relaxter.. Nevermind, I can stop it 💪

8 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

Ours will be flexible, provided you choose your sim or ActiveSky as your source.

Very nice, Sometimes I really need to flee from that grey/white during winter but there is no reason for me to skip the offers by GFO. I will play around with it for sure to find out what's working best for me. 

 

13 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

This would be the entire point of CPDLC, no?

As you're at work anyway, you could - skipping your lunch break - develop a PMDG quality digital, intelligent and fully implemented ATC addon.. with YOUR experience 

There's clearly missing a soft-soaping smiley here.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

10 minutes ago, Ephedrin said:

No it was meant to lighten the mood in here a bit, the whole thread was so impolite, I wanted to sound a bit relaxter.. Nevermind, I can stop it 💪

I think Brits use it a bit differently, which is why I asked. I grew up using it in a condescending context (and I used it plenty, myself, so, no judgment...just curious) :

"This isn't working!"
"Uhm...read the manual you lazy [...]."

11 minutes ago, Ephedrin said:

Very nice, Sometimes I really need to flee from that grey/white during winter but there is no reason for me to skip the offers by GFO. I will play around with it for sure to find out what's working best for me. 

Yeah, one of the other devs brought it up when I was going on about weather stuff. Using ActiveSky, for example, also allows people to use historical weather without issue, as well.

15 minutes ago, Ephedrin said:

As you're at work anyway, you could - skipping your lunch break - develop a PMDG quality digital, intelligent and fully implemented ATC addon.. with YOUR experience 

There's clearly missing a soft-soaping smiley here.

haha - I'm assuming ATC devs will pick up on it. I know someone mentioned it to Ross at the event (he made VRC, vSTARS, and vERAM).

[Ephedrin 418]

2 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

I'm assuming ATC devs will pick up on it. I know someone mentioned it to Ross at the event (he made VRC, vSTARS, and vERAM).

I really hope so.. I use to "pretend" to get vectored by ATC when flying the 777 or 747, but as I use FS2Crew I actually don't feel too comfortable to fight with my PC and online ATC at the same time.. So, fingers crossed. 

 

7 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

I think Brits use it a bit differently, which is why I asked. I grew up using it in a condescending context (and I used it plenty, myself, so, no judgment...just curious) :

That's why we talk 😄

[Guest]

5 hours ago, ganter said:

Kyle - any poss you could touch on how both service based failures and random failures will be implemented in GFO?

Was my question too stupid to answer Kyle? (knowing me, probably)

I just wondered how aircraft failures might work across GFO.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

2 minutes ago, ganter said:

Was my question too stupid to answer Kyle? (knowing me, probably)

Nope. Just missed it.

We're going to work in the maintenance aspect as we go through this. The line we're having to walk, though, is that this system is incredibly flexible, with variable automation.

For example:
You want RW weather? Awesome. Our ACARS requests will get you RW weather from RW sources. You want historical weather? Also fine. The ACARS request will get your weather reports from your weather add-on (AS only as of now).

Another example:
You want a gate? Cool. Send a gate request, and you'll get an automated response for that airport, that aircraft type, and that operator (with fallbacks). If you're part of a VA and someone is logged in as dispatch, they will get the request and can respond to it (something we'll need to work with VAs on, and that will naturally lag because none of them knew about it until Sat).

Maintenance will involve a lot more automation and work. You're not going to fix an engine in Fiji, for example, and the system should handle that, not the crew (this is a flight simulator, and not a maint sim).

[itay5344 6]

46 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

You want a gate? Cool. Send a gate request, and you'll get an automated response for that airport, that aircraft type, and that operator

Wow this will very useful feature fo me.

I saw some videos in the YouTube that show the B777 I noticed that when the B777 will cross the atlantic ocean the pilots should fill out a report via the COMM button under the "FLIGHT INFORMATION" send it and get confirmation or route from the ATC. Will it be simulate with the GFO? 

Edited June 11, 2018 by itay5344

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

Nope. Just missed it.

We're going to work in the maintenance aspect as we go through this. The line we're having to walk, though, is that this system is incredibly flexible, with variable automation.

For example:
You want RW weather? Awesome. Our ACARS requests will get you RW weather from RW sources. You want historical weather? Also fine. The ACARS request will get your weather reports from your weather add-on (AS only as of now).

Another example:
You want a gate? Cool. Send a gate request, and you'll get an automated response for that airport, that aircraft type, and that operator (with fallbacks). If you're part of a VA and someone is logged in as dispatch, they will get the request and can respond to it (something we'll need to work with VAs on, and that will naturally lag because none of them knew about it until Sat).

Maintenance will involve a lot more automation and work. You're not going to fix an engine in Fiji, for example, and the system should handle that, not the crew (this is a flight simulator, and not a maint sim).

That sounds awesome Kyle.

Not that I would be strongly motivated to fix an engine if stranded in Fiji!

How about Failures from the point of view of FMC programmed service based and random failures?

[scandinavian13 5,192]

1 minute ago, ganter said:

How about Failures from the point of view of FMC programmed service based and random failures?

Need to work out the former issue first, honestly. No sense in breaking things if they can't be fixed. Part of the reason behind the GFO concept, though, was to make the aircraft feel lived in (and get people more realistically to the MTBF times), so, it'll definitely be incorporated.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

Need to work out the former issue first, honestly. No sense in breaking things if they can't be fixed. Part of the reason behind the GFO concept, though, was to make the aircraft feel lived in (and get people more realistically to the MTBF times), so, it'll definitely be incorporated.

Sounds great. Thanks Kyle - you have obviously done a helluva lot of work on this. I'm very much looking forward to it. Congrats on the concept!

[scandinavian13 5,192]

1 minute ago, ganter said:

Sounds great. Thanks Kyle - you have obviously done a helluva lot of work on this. I'm very much looking forward to it. Congrats on the concept!

Thanks! Yeah. Seems like a simple concept, but it's actually really involved and deep.

[ErichB 3,642]

19 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

Thanks! Yeah. Seems like a simple concept, but it's actually really involved and deep.

I think people will come to love this and wonder how we ever coped without it before