[jhb_airlines] Re: FPI Update

  • From: "Bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:44:34 +0100

Welcome to the list Andy.

Had the FSInn guys continued to develop ATCInn I think we may have been in a
position to host our own system. With this gone we don't appear to have any
controller client software to "do our own thing". Unless this changes our
only two options are to either join VATSIM/IVAO or "borrow" the FPI server
software to keep running ATOC/ICP.

For the short term (beyond this Wednesday) I think we are snookered.


-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Berry
Sent: 28 August 2006 11:20
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FPI Update

Hi all,
 My first post on the mailing list (woooo)...

Although I am (sorry, was) UKI Vice President, my online presence has always
been fairly low... I work regular lates (my earliest finish is Sunday's at
8pm). However I have quite a bit of experience in the technical side of an
organisation like FPI (I was a founding member of INTVAS, NVAS etc etc), and
I designed the website (including all the technical crap) for the one that
actually stayed online for about 6 months (but closed due to the main guy
having problems at home and lack of members)

I know the providers all make a rather large fuss about how much they spend
on the servers... the financial commitment is not as large as they make out,
especially for a small community like ours would initially be, FPI ran 4
traffic servers, 3 voice servers and a couple of other servers for various
uses like weather, website etc. This simply isn't necessary at the minute,
one decent server is suitable for use by up to about a hundred users without
experiencing any major lag. Some of you may of heard of FSInn, a pilot
client, created by some French people), which uses a minimal amount of
bandwidth server side, all the details of aircraft information etc is sent
via P2P connection instead, meaning that instead of using servers to send
the data, it is sent direct from one client to another.

As for the pilot client becoming dated with FSX, I understand that Stefan
had created a working FSX interface that was being prepared for FPI release
as soon as FSX was made available for purchase in October(?). I presume that
he is probably planning to complete this, if he hasn't already, and pack
this up with the existing pilot client as part of a 'package' for use.


-----Original Message-----
From: franklyn fisher [mailto:ff006c5886@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 28 August 2006 10:06
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FPI Update

I think before launching headlong into running FPILite or whatever
ourselves, we should take a collective step back and look at the bigger


Very valid points, as you say, should we saddle ourselves with something ,
that is going to be out of date and incompatiable, and unmanageable.

And how many of us are willing to put in the time, effort and possible
finacial commitment

And how many of us who are currently willing, will be willing say, 6 months
down the line.

As much as I hate too, I may have to think of moving on, if I want to
continue as I have been.

I shall be online Wednesday, and bearing in mind the number of active
participents, it would be a small group to take up the mantle.

We would need a larger and commited group to make it work.

Alex and Bones, with their vast experiances are better placed to look at the


An online disscusion or a proper concesus may be needed, to get everyones
(and I mean everyones opinion) the number of voices, has been rather small.

Frank F

Other related posts: