Board index FlightGear Multiplayer events

The Festival of Flightgear-1&2 Nov, 2014

Virtual fly-ins, fun flies, competitions, and other group events. Find out details of upcoming events, register for competitions, or organize your own tour of a favorite location.

Re: The Ultimate MP Fly-in

Postby Jabberwocky » Sun May 11, 2014 3:29 pm

Okay, since the event is Saturday and Sunday, we have the intercontinental fly-ins on Friday to Saturday? Over the thumb, afternoon start in the US means morning landing in Madrid (in local times).
I hope, I get my voice communication up till then. At the moment, I'm limited to typing.

Metal: For mini events, can I circle with my big bird and shoot photos of the glider events and such? For my albums. My graphics sucks so they are probably unworthy of being the official photos, but hey, flying around and shoot pics is what I do in FG.

Plane: Of course, I will bring my shaggy cow aka 747-8i. Galley, coffee machine, restroom ... beat that fighter jets ;-)
Jabberwocky
Retired
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:36 pm
Callsign: JWOCKY
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Ubuntu 14.04

Re: The Ultimate MP Fly-in

Postby Lydiot » Sun May 11, 2014 4:49 pm

elgaton wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 1:57 pm:I discussed this topic a bit with other NIATCA ATCs, most of us are willing to temporarily "relocate" to Spain. We thought it would be nice to provide "full service" (man all positions - ground, tower, approach) at a major airport like Barcelona (this way Madrid will remain open to free, uncontrolled flying) and/or to control other airports in the area (like Porto - that would be great for the mini-events METAL proposed).

As for the times, on Saturday/Sunday I'm usually available in the afternoon and in the evening (about 1230-1630 and 1800-2200 UTC, with DST in effect).


I too volunteer for ATC duty if you need help. I'm on the US east coast so we can probably patch things together for a continuous controlled zone I think. And of course I'm fine with whatever position needs to be filled, be it ground, tower or approach/departure.

elgaton wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 1:57 pm:I checked some approach plates for Barcelona; STARs there start about 60 NM away from the airport, so I think declaring the airspace in a 60 NM radius and up to FL130 "controlled" should be enough. (Of course, we still need to sort out the details to make this event as inclusive as possible - the posts by Lydiot and Rick Ace hit the nail on the head).


The only thing with Open Radar is that it "catches" everything within a radius larger than 60nm, so the list will be filled with a bunch of uncontrolled traffic spawning and disappearing repeatedly. I don't think it's any way around it though since a larger radius would probably include too much area of control. I am curious to see what people think about this.

elgaton wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 1:57 pm:As for communication, should there be an accepted default method for the event or should we just let people use whatever they have/like?

We should definitely set an official method (having more than one voice communication system is not practical and realistic at all). As KL-666 said, Mumble (plus text chat as a backup/for those pilots who can't use voice) is popular around here.[/quote]

This is a good question. I've used neither Mumble nor FGcom since my laptop doesn't like FGcom unfortunately (Win 8). Is it correct that FGcom has 'channels' so that approach and tower can have different frequencies and you won't hear each other? Because if Mumble doesn't offer something like that then it's going to be a potential problem with (hopefully) so much traffic. I'd say we definitely need "separation" between the different ATCs.
Lydiot
 
Posts: 988
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: The Ultimate MP Fly-in

Postby Lydiot » Sun May 11, 2014 5:00 pm

A few more suggestions:

1) Should we maybe start dedicated threads for the event? One thread for ATCs to work out schedule, one for charts etc?

2) I think a few things that we could work out are;

- ATC schedules
- Charts for STARs and SIDs, i.e. decide on a few selected ones
- Procedures
- Standard terminology

(I think the last two above aren't used properly by many ATCs and pilots, including myself. I've had pilots tell me (and I've seen) that you're only told to "line up and wait" if there's a reason for it, otherwise the command is "cleared for takeoff" while holding short at which point the pilots taxis onto the runway and takes off, no need to wait etc...)

3) Let's make available in threads all the data pilots need. So there could be a simplified, clear and uncluttered information thread to all pilots. It should in my opinion be structured with the easiest information first, for those who will do very casual flying and don't care about controlled space, and then increasingly detailed information including airport charts and important fixes (IAFs), transition altitudes, communication standard language and procedures etc for those who want more control....
Lydiot
 
Posts: 988
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: The Ultimate MP Fly-in

Postby IAHM-COL » Sun May 11, 2014 5:33 pm

Lydiot wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 4:49 pm:As KL-666 said, Mumble (plus text chat as a backup/for those pilots who can't use voice) is popular around here.

Because if Mumble doesn't offer something like that then it's going to be a potential problem with (hopefully) so much traffic. I'd say we definitely need "separation" between the different ATCs.


Hi Lydiot

I think Mumble is the way to go. We just ask Michat to create the channels necessary for different aerodromes/positions, and then people can switch onto those.
The "fail" is that switching occurs from mumble, not with COM1. But oh well! FGCOM is a nightmare of setup.

In my opinion the channel names should be frequencies, to help realism
ie
Instead of being
LEMD_TWR
LEMD_GND
etc'
the channel names could be:
LEMD:118.15
LEMD:121.70
etc'
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it? Probably not, because if they don’t recognise their freedoms, they’ll let their freedoms fall
User avatar
IAHM-COL
Retired
 
Posts: 4064
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Callsign: HK-424D or ICAO4243
Version: 3.7-git
OS: Linux

Re: The Ultimate MP Fly-in

Postby IAHM-COL » Sun May 11, 2014 5:38 pm

Lydiot wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 5:00 pm:
(I think the last two above aren't used properly by many ATCs and pilots, including myself. I've had pilots tell me (and I've seen) that you're only told to "line up and wait" if there's a reason for it, otherwise the command is "cleared for takeoff" while holding short at which point the pilots taxis onto the runway and takes off, no need to wait etc...)


I agree with this. Its better to instruct planes to taxi to a holding of given rwy.
If it can go immediately, just clear to take off to the pilot that is holding short.
Special circumstances, such as "wake turbulence", may need a line and wait instruction, but it should not be, in my understanding, the default ATC falls everyone into.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it? Probably not, because if they don’t recognise their freedoms, they’ll let their freedoms fall
User avatar
IAHM-COL
Retired
 
Posts: 4064
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Callsign: HK-424D or ICAO4243
Version: 3.7-git
OS: Linux

Re: The Ultimate MP Fly-in

Postby IAHM-COL » Sun May 11, 2014 5:40 pm

Lydiot wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 5:00 pm:A few more suggestions:

1) Should we maybe start dedicated threads for the event? One thread for ATCs to work out schedule, one for charts etc?


Wouldn't this make the whole thing hard to follow? Kinda too much spread?
How about a wiki page for the event with tabs for each possible needed info? I think a wiki may do a good job to word-spreading too.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it? Probably not, because if they don’t recognise their freedoms, they’ll let their freedoms fall
User avatar
IAHM-COL
Retired
 
Posts: 4064
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Callsign: HK-424D or ICAO4243
Version: 3.7-git
OS: Linux

Re: The Ultimate MP Fly-in

Postby elgaton » Sun May 11, 2014 5:56 pm

Lydiot wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 4:49 pm:The only thing with Open Radar is that it "catches" everything within a radius larger than 60nm, so the list will be filled with a bunch of uncontrolled traffic spawning and disappearing repeatedly. I don't think it's any way around it though since a larger radius would probably include too much area of control.

There's not a way around it - OpenRadar uses the default 100 NM radius, just like the rest of the multiplayer system.

Lydiot wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 4:49 pm:Is it correct that FGcom has 'channels' so that approach and tower can have different frequencies and you won't hear each other?

Both FGCom and Mumble have separate channels; as much as I regret it, though, I'm a bit more inclined to use Mumble because:
  • people who run older FlightGear versions need to download it separately and to link FGCom and FlightGear manually, which can be complex for a non tech-savvy user;
  • Mumble features echo cancellation and uses less bandwidth;
  • the correct mapping between radio frequencies and FGCom server channels assumes that everyone has the same version of the mapping list (phonebook.txt), that is often not the case.

Lydiot wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 5:00 pm:A few more suggestions:

1) Should we maybe start dedicated threads for the event? One thread for ATCs to work out schedule, one for charts etc?

2) I think a few things that we could work out are;

- ATC schedules
- Charts for STARs and SIDs, i.e. decide on a few selected ones
- Procedures
- Standard terminology

I'd suggest first to agree on the airports that should be controlled and to discuss here or open a thread for each aerodrome (so that, once we have the schedules set in place, a participating controller can register the session on Lenny's website). As for standard terminology, I'm currently rewriting the ATC Tutorial wiki page using this official and handy Eurocontrol publication as a reference, so we'll just need to agree on handoff procedures (= determine at which points we should handover aircrafts to other controllers).

(Side note: the Spanish AIP is freely accessible - no need to register).

Lydiot wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 5:00 pm:3) Let's make available in threads all the data pilots need. So there could be a simplified, clear and uncluttered information thread to all pilots. It should in my opinion be structured with the easiest information first, for those who will do very casual flying and don't care about controlled space, and then increasingly detailed information including airport charts and important fixes (IAFs), transition altitudes, communication standard language and procedures etc for those who want more control....

I think a wiki page would be more appropriate - again, this is my personal opinion :wink:
NIATCA 2nd admin, regular ATC at LIPX and creator of the LIPX custom scenery
elgaton
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 4:58 pm
Callsign: I-ELGA/LIPX_TW
Version: Git
OS: Windows + Arch Linux

Re: The Ultimate MP Fly-in

Postby Lydiot » Sun May 11, 2014 6:02 pm

IAHM-COL wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 5:40 pm:
Lydiot wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 5:00 pm:A few more suggestions:

1) Should we maybe start dedicated threads for the event? One thread for ATCs to work out schedule, one for charts etc?


Wouldn't this make the whole thing hard to follow? Kinda too much spread?


In my experience it'll probably end up being the other way around. If it's only one thread for discussion we'll eventually end up with people reading only the last few pages and then questioning things that were discussed many many pages ago, forcing people to either ignore them or rehash old information. If the worry is that it'd be too spread out, why not just have a meta-thread that's stickied with links to the respective threads along with a description of what's discussed there?

Perhaps we won't have enough participation for it to matter though. I hope that's not the case.

IAHM-COL wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 5:40 pm:How about a wiki page for the event with tabs for each possible needed info? I think a wiki may do a good job to word-spreading too.


I think maybe we should look at it in two ways; marketing and informing.

A wiki page is only effective if people see it, so I don't think it's good for marketing the event. For that we'd need to push it on the forum as well as on the website, in my opinion. I think a wiki page is great for information, and I'd complement that with an info thread I think. As long as all of these sources match a wide approach is probably better so we can get more people to join the event.
Lydiot
 
Posts: 988
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: The Ultimate MP Fly-in

Postby Jabberwocky » Sun May 11, 2014 6:36 pm

The old marketing versus informing ploy ... yeah! Okay, we market and discuss here, it has some speed, that brings things forward. And the information is a wiki page. The only thing we really need is a sticky with the link to the wiki. The real problem with the Wiki is, to get the information together and put it there. I don't see like 20 ATCs (just a thumb calculation for five airports and each about 8 hours active) editing a wiki page. Nor do I see all the pilots entering their intent to participate there. So ... still mentally working on the problem. Point is, we need to make it easy for people to join in and we need to get them some extra if they tell us so beforehand or participate in a function like for example ATC.
Jabberwocky
Retired
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:36 pm
Callsign: JWOCKY
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Ubuntu 14.04

Re: The Ultimate MP Fly-in

Postby Rick Ace » Sun May 11, 2014 6:51 pm

If I may suggest one thing, it's best to start a new thread with all the information in the first post. I'd hate to read through 7 pages of arguing and debating. :P
Rick Ace
 
Posts: 1023
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 6:02 pm
Location: New York City
Callsign: rickace
Version: 2.6.0
OS: Vista

Re: The Ultimate MP Fly-in

Postby elgaton » Sun May 11, 2014 8:15 pm

Jabberwocky wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 6:36 pm:The real problem with the Wiki is, to get the information together and put it there. I don't see like 20 ATCs (just a thumb calculation for five airports and each about 8 hours active) editing a wiki page. Nor do I see all the pilots entering their intent to participate there. So ... still mentally working on the problem. Point is, we need to make it easy for people to join in and we need to get them some extra if they tell us so beforehand or participate in a function like for example ATC.

What if we put up a shared Doodle (or something like that) just to plan the ATC coverage, put the results on Lenny's website (when the exact date will be known) and let pilots file their flightplans there? The wiki would then only be edited by us to collect all information needed by the pilots.

EDIT: of course, pilots could use a Doodle as well for preliminary planning (= just to see who will be there), as long as they file a flightplan before coming.

Rick Ace wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 6:51 pm:If I may suggest one thing, it's best to start a new thread with all the information in the first post. I'd hate to read through 7 pages of arguing and debating. :P

Could be an option if that thread is kept exclusively for announcement purposes.
Last edited by elgaton on Mon May 12, 2014 9:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
NIATCA 2nd admin, regular ATC at LIPX and creator of the LIPX custom scenery
elgaton
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 4:58 pm
Callsign: I-ELGA/LIPX_TW
Version: Git
OS: Windows + Arch Linux

Re: The Ultimate MP Fly-in

Postby IAHM-COL » Sun May 11, 2014 8:30 pm

thumbs up for Elgaton proposal here
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it? Probably not, because if they don’t recognise their freedoms, they’ll let their freedoms fall
User avatar
IAHM-COL
Retired
 
Posts: 4064
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Callsign: HK-424D or ICAO4243
Version: 3.7-git
OS: Linux

Re: The Ultimate MP Fly-in

Postby Lydiot » Sun May 11, 2014 9:00 pm

Jabberwocky wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 6:36 pm:The old marketing versus informing ploy ... yeah! Okay, we market and discuss here, it has some speed, that brings things forward. And the information is a wiki page. The only thing we really need is a sticky with the link to the wiki.


I actually meant that we should use all options to reach as many people as possible. Not exclude anything.

Jabberwocky wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 6:36 pm:Nor do I see all the pilots entering their intent to participate there. So ... still mentally working on the problem. Point is, we need to make it easy for people to join in and we need to get them some extra if they tell us so beforehand or participate in a function like for example ATC.


Personally I think that the pilots who want more realism will make the effort to file flight plans, but I think a general "sign up" is unnecessary. I think what is most important is informing as many as possible that the event will happen and that they can find info on it somewhere, and then they can just show up. Too much structure before hand will turn a lot of people off I think.
Lydiot
 
Posts: 988
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: The Ultimate MP Fly-in

Postby Lydiot » Sun May 11, 2014 9:06 pm

elgaton wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 8:15 pm:What if we put up a shared Doodle (or something like that) just to plan the ATC coverage,


I actually think the ATCs who are most interested can probably work a lot out in a dedicated thread on the forum, and then when stuff is solid port that over to an information thread and wiki. But I'm open to "doodling" whatever that is....

elgaton wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 8:15 pm:put the results on Lenny's website (when the exact date will be known) and let pilots file their flightplans there? The wiki would then only be edited by us to collect all informations needed by the pilots.


Can the flight plans on Lenny's website be automatically ported into Open Radar? Or would that happen manually?

Also, sorry for the correction but it's a pet peeve of mine: "information", not "informations". It hurts my eyes.

elgaton wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 8:15 pm:EDIT: of course, pilots could use a Doodle as well for preliminary planning (= just to see who will be there), as long as they file a flightplan before coming.


Like I said in an earlier post; I don't think flight plans should be required by pilots. I think it would be good if they had them, but if the goal is getting a lot of pilots to fly on one day then it shouldn't be a requirement.

elgaton wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 8:15 pm:
Rick Ace wrote in Sun May 11, 2014 6:51 pm:If I may suggest one thing, it's best to start a new thread with all the information in the first post. I'd hate to read through 7 pages of arguing and debating. :P

Could be an option if that thread is kept exclusively for announcement purposes.


That was my point earlier. One thread once the details are set, geared towards mainly pilots, but possibly also ATCs. And it can contain links to relevant threads if need be.
Lydiot
 
Posts: 988
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: The Ultimate MP Fly-in

Postby Jabberwocky » Mon May 12, 2014 12:12 am

@Lydiot: The "I can't see pilots..." line referred to pilots posting their flightplan in the Wiki. Which also wouldn't make sense anyway. The point is, we need SEVERAL instruments to promote and to organize. Who feels like flying banners in MP ;-) ?
Give me a little time ti think about it, then I come probably up with something more sense.

J.
Jabberwocky
Retired
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:36 pm
Callsign: JWOCKY
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Ubuntu 14.04

PreviousNext

Return to Multiplayer events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests