coma

The price for PilotEdge has very little to do with infrastructure and everything to do with paying controllers to be there. 15x7 coverage....2 coverage areas with 1 of the areas have an extra controller online for some of the time. Use just about any pay rate above minimum wage and you'll see the costs add up very quickly. In terms of this proposal, the problem is writing a solid voice recognition system, and something which doesn't suck at sequencing. Consider this request, "we'd like the VOR-A, then the ILS back at John Wayne." There's that, and a nearly infinite number of other ways that you could paralyze a voice recognition system, making requests that you say in real life on literally any IFR flight.

The small area you refer to, just to confirm, you're referring to the 85 towered airports, thousands of non-towered airports within 6 ARTCCs? When PE was ZLA only, I understood the comments that it was 'small', but now that it covers the western half of the United States, I'd have to disagree. Regarding the price, you can fly in 5 of the 6 ARTCC's with a Western US subscription for $19.95/mth or $179/yr (annual subs get a discount). If you want ZLA + Western US, the annual sub for that is $329. If you're going to extrapolate a monthly price to an annual figure, it's more reasonable to use the annual option, that's what it's for. As for the 'single controller' argument, there are 2-3 controllers online at time on PilotEdge during normal configurations (1-2 for ZLA, plus a separate controller for Western US), and then considerably more than that during the monthly events. I totally understand that it's initially odd hearing the same controller's voice when swap from freq to freq (although, I've lost count of how many times it happens at towered airports where one guy/girl is working ground and tower at the same time...) You're conditioned to VATSIM where you get a voice change on every freq. What you're failing to consider is that you ONLY get a freq change if there is a controller working the next position. So, on PE on a flight from SNA to, say, SBA, you go from SNA clearance, to ground, to tower, then through 3 Socal tracon sectors, then Pt Mugu tracon, then Santa Barbara tracon, then SBA tower and then SBA ground. With typical VATSIM staffing (again, assuming there is anyone there at all), it's likely to be, say LAX_CTR and LAX_TWR online. That means, you're going to be on 125.80 (LAX_CTR) for the ENTIRE flight. You're still hearing just one controller the ENTIRE time, and even worse, you haven't changed freq the entire time. On VFR flights it becomes even more important as the distinction between Tower and Departure gets completely lost since you're talking to LA Center the entire time. So, between the option of having ambiguous ATC with non-distinct roles through the the flight, OR, realistic freq changes and a crystal clear distinction between the roles that you're talking to on a given flight...I think the second is preferred, even if it is the same VOICE, the controllers are well-trained in handling things as a different ROLE. So, if you request the ILS into SBA while you're talking to Socal or Pt Mugu on PE, they're going to say, "you can make that request with Santa Barbara...." On VATSIM/IVAO, they're going to say, "rgr, expect the ILS" because at any given time, you don't know what position is ACTUALLY being simulated, because you're on 125.80 (LAX_CTR) the entire time (with the staffing that I just described). The situation is only marginally improved if SCT_X (socal combined tracon) is online...you're in exactly the same boat if you fly, say, BFL to SBA instead as BFL tracon and SBA tracon are almost never staffed, practically speaking...it's going to fall under LAX_CTR even if SCT_X and LAX_TWR are online. This is not to be disparaging of VATSIM, however, when you say that you have a problem with speaking to the same controller after each freq change, you're discounting the fact that you're getting way more freq changes with a clear distinction of roles in the process. That, and a guarantee that ATC is there to begin with during the published times. That is a completely different offering to volunteer staffing with a completely unknown progression of freq changes on a given flight. Lastly, if you actually want to hear a distinct voice on every freq change, along with realistic freq changes, we'd need 400+ people to staff ZLA alone, just like the real thing. That's not financially viable, or is any version of the plan with even 1/10th of that staffing level. When you're paying controllers to be there, the math gets brutal....immediately.

dynamic VHF distortion was implemented on PilotEdge for X-Plane quite a while ago. P3D/FSX will be next.

Starting to play VHF radio emulation for PilotEdge now. We avoided it for years because the version of the sound library we used didn't allow convenient post-processing of the audio. Now that we've moved to a newer version of the library (a while ago, admittedly), I'm looking closely at this. I found some open source DSP code and was able to apply high and low pass filters, but there was a buzz in the resulting audio of which I'm not a fan. I'll keep working it Since we do track the signal strength for party on the network, we could theoretically degrade the signal as it gets closer to the limits of the reception distance. We already model the transmitter locations on the network as well as we can (even the altitude of the rado transmitters in cases where they're placed on top of a mountain) so everything is in place except for the last piece, which is to manipulate the audio based on all the conditions we're simulating. Some people will like this, others will not. I started out not wanting it, but I have come to realize that the cd quality audio we use now needs at least a high and low pass filter to run over it (with the appropriate cutoffs) to remove the low end bass, even if we add no actual distortion, that would be a good start. Beyond that, we'll probably make it optional to enable the degrading of the signal. Regarding the expansion, we're on track to launch by end of year, and yes, it's generally for tubeliners, but the 'bonus field' program might be of interesting to piston and turboprop guys. That's a program where we staff an additional field (on a rotating basis), not too far from one of the expansion fields. That way, there are some additional options for smaller planes without having to fly 600-800nm between airports. That, and we will be providing basic radar services for enroute IFR and VFR within the expansion area (albeit without the ability to vector or clear people for approaches into unsupported airports, but it does cover you for 95+% of the flight). This opens up several hundred non-towered airports, too, where you can depart on the CTAF, pick up advisories, fly around pretty much anywhere you want within the expanded area, then terminate your service just prior to swapping to CTAF at the next non-towered airport.

Normally we keep it serious, flying at towered airports, working with ATC, the whole nine yards. This time, though, we just blew off some steam at a non-towered airport (actually, a private strip, to boot)

There's always room for fun & games, listen to this one of a 747 out of LAX that calls for takeoff clearance when he still has 1/2 mile of taxiing to do...(an Aussie pilot and a pseudo-Australian controller). Don't worry, he doesn't control much anymore. http://assets.pilotedge.net/recordings/archive/early_takeoff.mp3 (from 10 secs to 1min 39secs)

Failures are fine as long as you handle them in a realistic fashion. 747 going GPS direct from LAX to SFO with a 4 engine-out emergency screaming "mayday mayday!!" is not welcome. Realistic emergencies are fine and do not require coordination or permission. The PE plugin for xplane, as an example, monitors bus voltage. If it drops below a certain value, your radio is toast. So, if you're on a flight and the alternator goes offline, you need to do what you'd do in real world, shed load and come up with a plan, particularly if you're in IMC. Those are great emergencies. We also have the technology to check your gear state (though the controllers haven't been trained on that yet) so if you suspect there's a gear problem, you can do a low approach at a towered airport and they'll be able to check it out. Those are all fine. We can actually trigger failures in X-Plane from the scope, a feature we currently reserve for commercial clients but will eventually make available for retail customers as well. Here's a great video of one of our users (who has agreed to let us trigger failures on him without notice for testing). I was watching him stream his flight live on twitch, hopped on the scope as an observer and triggered a bird strike. This is the result: That wasn't what I was referring to when I mentioned dynamic events, though. I actually meant things as simple as, "ground, is Alpha the 2nd left or this one right here?" "Ground, can we pull over here on Alpha for a moment? We need to check something out, should take about 90 seconds." Those simple examples will result in "say again" from any synthetic system. Regarding your concern for beginners, we have pretty thorough training programs to take you through a detailed series of flights with plenty of resources to make sure you're prepared for each flight (cockpit videos, transcripts, etc).

BeechPapa, here's a link to some of the exchanges that took place on the combined radar position during the opening hour of service on PilotEdge today: http://assets.pilotedge.net/recordings/hourly/2015-1-22_8_17510.mp3 How do feel about the clarity and readability there? Note: this link will not work in 3 months from now, that's how long the recordings are kept for QA purposes. And that, right there, is why synthetic ATC systems are going to struggle to gain acceptance among real world pilots. If it's all you've ever used, it's probably ok, but once you've spoken to a real controller and realized that they understand just about everything you say, no matter how you say it, it's very, very hard to accept anything else. There are also many non-standard things that can happen during a flight, whether it's requesting an approach other than the one in use, negotiating shortcuts or practice approaches, asking for weather at other fields, or receiving interesting vectors behind other live traffic, ATC is fundamentally dynamic. This is my beef with synthetic systems, they miss this nuances...and ultimately, once you get passed the basics of IFR clearances, taxi, takeoff and landing, what's left is the interesting, dynamic stuff. $20MM Level D full motion flight simulators are often equipped with synthetic ATC systems. At most places, they simply turn off the ATC and have the instructor pilot pretend to be ATC (badly). There really aren't any synthetic systems out there, afaik, where pilots walk out of a sim saying, "boy, that ATC was amazing, just like the real thing." They sound like what they are...a computer attempting to impersonate a person. Great for stock standard exchanges, but they fall short when the going gets tough.

kama2004, thanks for the kind words. PilotEdge traffic for Dec and Jan was up 40% compared to the average for the rest of 2014. The traffic is considerably heavier than it used to be. That said, since we cover 40 towered airports, the chances of having multiple aircraft in the pattern are small unless you've arranged something in the Fly WIth Me forum. Another exception would be SNA, which almost always has aircraft inbound or outbound there because of the various training programs. I'm happy to say that we are looking closely at our first network expansion for later this year. The planning and funding are in the works as we speak. I think 737, 757 and CRJ pilots are going to be very happy with the result.

The live workshops at PilotEdge haven't been scheduled for a while. The recordings of the previous workshops have been posted, though.

Gregg, regarding PE, have you visited every airport and flown every approach in ZLA? If so, you would be the first person I've met who's done that To keep things fresh, I've added FSEconomy into the mix with PilotEdge as well as starting to tinker with helicopters. Between those things, I've found plenty of life even out of areas that I've flown into hundreds of times.

I realize this is old, but you can use native multiplayer over the internet, too, you just have to make sure you can make a direct P2P connection between the two boxes. This usually involves port forwarding and firewall holes which is typically beyond the level of comfort for most people. You can spend a few hours trying to get that working, or, as others have suggested, you're probably better off with a client/server multiplayer model using the networks that have been suggested. Another suggestion would be to check out SmartCoPilot, a shared cockpit plugin for X-Plane. If you want to fly with a buddy, this is by far the most enjoyable way to do it. It allows you to fly a single airplane together. Here are some links to some videos of shared cockpit flights: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pilotedge+shared+cockpit

PilotEdge now has native support for P3D in the installer.

Might want to consider X-Plane, I find I can trim it just fine for hands off flight. As to whether it gets easier flying in the clouds, it absolutely does. I never really experienced the wild disorientation that you experienced, but by the time I flew in my first cloud in a GA airplane, I'd had been simming for 30 years prior and had built up decent scan and confidence in my ability to interpret what the instruments are telling me. The other thing to know is that if the plane was trimmed for hands off flight prior to going into the clouds, then barring any significant turbulence, you won't need to do much else to the plane, other than small pitch changes. The plane doesn't suddenly roll all over the place just because you're in a cloud :) I fly in a wide range of IFR conditions but I don't fly much more than 100 hours per year (most of that would be 6 hour roundtrips that are many weeks apart). Without the sim at home, there's no way I'd have the confidence to fly in the clouds. I'm on the sim once or twice a week at a minimum, doing full end to end flights (not just approaches).

Where is it written that you must have RNAV capability? Here's a shared cockpit flight on PilotEdge with the 737-200. We filed /A for the equipment suffix from SNA to SFO. The route was CHAN1.RZS J501 BSR.BSR2. The VOR transmission distances aren't quite accurate for some of the VOR's, but that can easily be tweaked in the nav.dat file to bring the transmission distance closer to real world levels, especially for the VORs that are used to define the high enroute structure (Jet airways). You hear two voices, plus the ATC. The british sounding guy is the pilot flying, the Canadian guy is the pilot not flying. He's providing me with basic instruction on the systems as it's my first time ever loading up the airplane. Takeoff is at about the 25min mark. Here's the video: It's entirely possible to fly online, and real world without RNAV. Btw, this plane is a must have. It flies very nicely and the avionics keep you engaged throughout the flight. While I do love flying the CRJ-200, the simple fact is that watching the airplane perfectly fly the route loaded into the FMS doesn't leave much to the imagination.