17 minutes ago, awf said:

No I still disagree 🙃

Just make an alternative for us yourself André.

Including historical data for a selling price that you find is not ridiculous….. 🤓

Btw : still waiting for the Level D 757 that you claimed would be released 😂

 

1 hour ago, awf said:

No I still disagree 🙃

(Hollandse zuinigheid? 🙂 Je mag blij zijn dat je PSXT gratis mag gebruiken. Heeft me ongeveer 3500 uur aan ontwikkelwerk gekost.)

Okay back in English:

Then don't use it. Go for "canned traffic". 😉

 

2 hours ago, kiek said:

(Hollandse zuinigheid? 🙂 Je mag blij zijn dat je PSXT gratis mag gebruiken. Heeft me ongeveer 3500 uur aan ontwikkelwerk gekost.)

Okay back in English:

Then don't use it. Go for "canned traffic". 😉

 

(Nee ik betaal graag voor je programma meer dan dat, maar niet voor je dataprovider, wat los staat toch van je programma of is dat ook van jou?

Trouwens toen wij indertijd 8 vliegtuigen als freeware hebben gereleased nooit gezegd tegen een gebuiker "Hollandse zuinigheid"

Misschien het prijspunt wat te sterk verwoord en niet de bedoeling om je te beledigingen, was in de veronderstelling dat de dataprovider niet van jou was?)

Anyway back to English,  it's a shame because I really like your program and grateful for your time, but your solution is to say "that is what it is and not open for other suggestions"

If you find 180 dollar per year a bargain well we differ in opinion I find it personally steep 😉 Unfortunately then this great program isn't for me 😉

 

Edited April 26, 20224 yr by awf

2 hours ago, GSalden said:

Just make an alternative for us yourself André.

Including historical data for a selling price that you find is not ridiculous….. 🤓

Btw : still waiting for the Level D 757 that you claimed would be released 😂

 

Ouch Gerard, what has that do with this discussion and opinion to bring up a 757 and go back in time 9 years is beyond my comprehensiveness (what was out of my control anyway, not in charge.. so I don't get your point) 

We released in the past 8 freeware aircraft and a truck load of downloads and awards, have done my share at the freeware front 😉

I'm entitled to my own personal opinion and we can respectfully disagree on that front, but no need to be impolite...

Edited April 26, 20224 yr by awf

2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

You want the developer to charge you less than what the data costs? 

After reading my reply I Adjusted the strong worded text which could maybe offensive but wasn't my intention...

9 hours ago, awf said:

(Nee ik betaal graag voor je programma meer dan dat, maar niet voor je dataprovider, wat los staat toch van je programma of is dat ook van jou?

Trouwens toen wij indertijd 8 vliegtuigen als freeware hebben gereleased nooit gezegd tegen een gebuiker "Hollandse zuinigheid"

Misschien het prijspunt wat te sterk verwoord en niet de bedoeling om je te beledigingen, was in de veronderstelling dat de dataprovider niet van jou was?)

Anyway back to English,  it's a shame because I really like your program and grateful for your time, but your solution is to say "that is what it is and not open for other suggestions"

If you find 180 dollar per year a bargain well we differ in opinion I find it personally steep 😉 Unfortunately then this great program isn't for me 😉

 

(Ik bedoelde het niet zo hard, beetje Hollandse directheid  Ben alleen dat gezeur over dat iets te duur is een beetje zat. In de Flightsim wereld denken velen dat alles gratis moet zijn. Zit er ook al meer dan 20 jaar in en heb met diverse freeware programma's mijn bijdrage wel geleverd, net als jij.)

Back to English, 

No RealTraffic is from Balthasar from Inside systems in Australia, not from me. He is a former pilot that runs it as a hobby, having a full time job.

There is no real alternative for RT. No other party can -legally- provide real time data (about 40 items per aircraft) each 2 seconds, world wide, for these prices. Traffic data costs money, hiring an IT server infrastructure also costs money, ...

 

Edited April 27, 20224 yr by kiek

9 hours ago, awf said:

Ouch Gerard, what has that do with this discussion and opinion to bring up a 757 and go back in time 9 years is beyond my comprehensiveness (what was out of my control anyway, not in charge.. so I don't get your point) 

We released in the past 8 freeware aircraft and a truck load of downloads and awards, have done my share at the freeware front 😉

I'm entitled to my own personal opinion and we can respectfully disagree on that front, but no need to be impolite...

Like you I have released freeware too. In my case 20+ PTA profiles that selfmade expressions. And Flight dynamics files for the CS 757 years ago.

If historical data for RT is expensive than the developer from RT cannot sell it for a bargain. It is all cost based….

Edited April 27, 20224 yr by GSalden

I have been using RT and PSX since it's birth, and the cost per an um is equal to 2 full tanks of petrol. I get 2 weeks of petrol versus 12 months of pure pleasure of accurate live traffic.

On 11/25/2021 at 12:16 AM, Digger57 said:

In my younger days one of my teachers on medical school once told me: "never assume... "😉 

It wasn’t me, was it? That’s been my most (in)famous line for the past 20 years. :)

Edited April 27, 20224 yr by OzWhitey

6 hours ago, kiek said:

(Ik bedoelde het niet zo hard, beetje Hollandse directheid  Ben alleen dat gezeur over dat iets te duur is een beetje zat. In de Flightsim wereld denken velen dat alles gratis moet zijn. Zit er ook al meer dan 20 jaar in en heb met diverse freeware programma's mijn bijdrage wel geleverd, net als jij.)

Back to English, 

No RealTraffic is from Balthasar from Inside systems in Australia, not from me. He is a former pilot that runs it as a hobby, having a full time job.

There is no real alternative for RT. No other party can -legally- provide real time data (about 40 items per aircraft) each 2 seconds, world wide, for these prices. Traffic data costs money, hiring an IT server infrastructure also costs money, ...

 

Appreciated you're time and reply back Nico, could it be a valid suggestion to have an option to choose the dataprovider (one for the pro (paid data) and one for the more casual user? (payware for your program but with opensource dataprovider)

For example there is also open source ADS-B data available happy to pay then also for your program  😉 ((https://opensky-network.org/))

Anyway thank you for your time and apology for my strong wording about the pricing not my strongest moment in a reply 😉

Edited April 27, 20224 yr by awf

17 hours ago, kiek said:

(Hollandse zuinigheid? 🙂 Je mag blij zijn dat je PSXT gratis mag gebruiken. Heeft me ongeveer 3500 uur aan ontwikkelwerk gekost.)

Okay back in English:

Then don't use it. Go for "canned traffic". 😉

 

I like the program, but it has a serious limitation that has not been addressed for years now.

Issue: it uses a unidirectional flow of information in a situation where a bidirectional approach is needed.

Problem:

1. I am about to taxi onto the active. I see an aircraft on final approach. I hold - this is fine. The aircraft completes its landing safely.

2. I am on final approach. An aircraft is holding short. It goes straight onto the runway, potentially causing a crash. 

As far as I can see, the aircraft displayed in the sim have absolutely no way of knowing that I am cleared by MSFS ATC and about to takeoff via that runway. 

Surely this would not be hard to fix? We just need some way to broadcast the position of my sim aircraft so that other planes using that airport are aware of my location. I'm not an expert on this aspect, but broadcasting via a modified ADS-B transceiver would seem to be the easiest solution?

Dual, unlinked ATC systems are also problematic from a communication and safety point of view. We probably need to come to a consensus - we could use standard ATC for sim flights, or alternatively commercial operators agree to use MSFS ATC.  Either option would be fine with me.

Cheers!   

 

 

26 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

1. I am about to taxi onto the active. I see an aircraft on final approach. I hold - this is fine. The aircraft completes its landing safely.

2. I am on final approach. An aircraft is holding short. It goes straight onto the runway, potentially causing a crash. 

As far as I can see, the aircraft displayed in the sim have absolutely no way of knowing that I am cleared by MSFS ATC and about to takeoff via that runway. 

Surely this would not be hard to fix? We just need some way to broadcast the position of my sim aircraft so that other planes using that airport are aware of my location. I'm not an expert on this aspect, but broadcasting via a modified ADS-B transceiver would seem to be the easiest solution?

Dual, unlinked ATC systems are also problematic from a communication and safety point of view. We probably need to come to a consensus - we could use standard ATC for sim flights, or alternatively commercial operators agree to use MSFS ATC.  Either option would be fine with me.

Are you serious, or are you joking.. ?

I'm sorry but what you propose is very unrealistic. The ai aircraft of PSXT are representing LIVE aircraft and they listen/obey LIVE ATC controllers and certainly not MSFS ATC 🙂

You, as a pilot,  have to adapt to the real live traffic and switch MSFS ATC off .

 

1 hour ago, awf said:

 could it be a valid suggestion to have an option to choose the dataprovider (one for the pro (paid data) and one for the more casual user? 

No, I'm sorry Andre. I will not consider that. It would mean that it will become very difficult for RT to survive and we will end up with the poor mans solution of OpenSky.

40 minutes ago, kiek said:

Are you serious, or are you joking.. ?

I'm sorry but what you propose is very unrealistic. The ai aircraft of PSXT are representing LIVE aircraft and they listen/obey LIVE ATC controllers and certainly not MSFS ATC 🙂

You, as a pilot,  have to adapt to the real live traffic and switch MSFS ATC off .

 

Look, if you can't do this I'm sure somebody else can...

(I'm probably joking, I'm not sure how the FAA would feel about us hacking ADS-B to insert our sim aircraft. Also, getting airlines to agree to use MSFS ATC may be a tough sell.)

😉

 

1 hour ago, kiek said:

No, I'm sorry Andre. I will not consider that. It would mean that it will become very difficult for RT to survive and we will end up with the poor mans solution of OpenSky.

Ok npb thanks for listening appreciated...

Cheers,