[jhb_airlines] Re: FPI last night

  • From: gwinsk@xxxxxxx
  • To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 06:44:50 +0100

Now having recovered the hardware needd for a network, what are the advantages 
to be 
had from running ATOC on a second, debugged networked computer?

Gerry Winskill
gwinsk@xxxxxxx


On 11 Aug 2004 at 22:22, Bones wrote:

> I'm really pleased that you finally managed to get in to the session
> and take part. I commend your patience and determination through the
> last few weeks and I'm glad you are no longer just a "voice in the
> ether". <g>
> 
> Networks are still tricky things to set up with ATOC but I am sure
> these will be sorted out as the guys continue to fiddle with the
> software. I did note that your strip details came up on screen without
> an aircraft type or speed data (the same with Peter Dodds until he
> reconnected) but the full details did get through once you moved your
> files around. From that point onwards you stayed rock solid on FPI and
> the vectoring was a breeze.
> 
> Just out of interest your earlier attempts to connect were partly
> successful. You obviously got on to the FPI server OK but all I would
> get is your first blip - which froze on the screen until you
> disconnected. Your strip details also came up but, as I said, without
> the type in it. So, on the networked system, it was partly working but
> it looks like your machine stopped porting data to the FPI server
> immediately after you connected.
> 
> bones
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kevin
> > Townsend Sent: 11 August 2004 16:43 To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FPI last night
> > 
> > 
> > I too had an enjoyable evening participating in the session 
> > last night.
> > 
> > I am experiencing exactly the problems reported today by 
> > Peter with my 
> > attempt to use a 2 machine network.
> > 
> > I joined around 8.30 last night, but had difficulty in filing 
> > a flightplan, 
> > no aircraft available in the drop down, and ATOC flags this. 
> > I saw myself 
> > with information within ServInfo and flew from Biggin Hill (EGKB) to
> > Liverpool (EGGP), as I was experiencing problems I thought I would
> > just transit the Manchester Zone en-route as I was still
> > experiencing problems.
> > 
> > Throughout the flight the ATOC module experienced unexpected 
> > errors and 
> > closed itself down. This occurred every 3 - 4 minutes and 
> > around 10 times 
> > in all. (This must have caused havoc with the controllers as 
> > I continued 
> > flying throughout this time and must have been popping up all 
> > over the 
> > place! (apologies all round).
> > 
> > I tried a re-install of the FPI software but things did not 
> > improve. I 
> > decided to then install it on the FS9 machine and flew from 
> > thereon without 
> > connection problems, and all aircraft now in the flightplan list.
> > The software reacted very much quicker than before in the network
> > setup, so I imagine there is a bottleneck somewhere! This is a pity
> > as to be able to fly on one machine and to run all the other
> > services on another is considerably more practical, particularly (as
> > I now know - thanks Bones)  all hand-offs are done within ATOC. I
> > will continue to monitor the network improvements and hope
> > eventually to adopt this preferred method.
> > 
> > I continued with a radar vectoring service into Liverpool, 
> > and once things 
> > quietened down, another into Birmingham (I think) Lousy 
> > landing blamed on 
> > high workload. This enabled both controllers to experiment a 
> > little, but 
> > was further confused by me now running the voice server on 
> > both machines 
> > with only one mic - <G> although I had selected the hand-off 
> > within ATOC I 
> > could not communicate on that channel although listeners on the
> > other machine channels could hear my replies, this caused a bit of a
> > red herring but was sussed by bones and the penny fell.
> > 
> > Looking forward to next week, after the Test Match.
> > 
> > Regards to all
> > 
> > 
> > Kev
> > 
> > At 07:35 8/11/2004, you wrote:
> > >Well I had rather a frustrating time in some ways, and an excellent
> > > flight in others.  I flew Newcastle to Manchester via Pole 
> > Hill, IFR in 
> > >the 172 at FL60.  I have FS on one machine, and ATOC and Servinfo
> > >on the other.
> > >
> > >First of all, in spite of checking that both PCs on my network
> > >could find the FS9 directory (on my desk machine), AND reinstalling
> > >one of the ATOC aircraft packs (Europe) before starting the ATOC 
> > software on 
> > >the laptop I still couldn't see other aircraft, nor file a 
> > flight plan.  
> > >I even did a partial re-setup of ATOC, but no joy.
> > >
> > >Then, en route, I made my initial call 50 miles out from 
> > EGCC, and he 
> > >acknowledged with a "stand by". I did, and I expected him to 
> > come back 
> > >to me when I was some 10 - 15 miles north of POL. He didn't, so I
> > >reported again when overhead POL, which is about 7 miles inside the
> > > Manchester TMA, (which I actually didn't have permission to enter
> > ><cough>).  When John said I wasn't on radar, (which is why he had
> > >forgotten me in the melee) and knowing that I couldn't see other
> > >aircraft, but they might see me and therefore I might get in 
> > their way, 
> > >I diverted to Barton, descending rapidly to 1500 feet in the 
> > process to 
> > >be able to see the ground.
> > >
> > >During the long leg from EGNC to POL, I heard that other pilots
> > >were having trouble contacting Tower, so I tried and connected 
> > successfully 
> > >so far as I could tell (I got the little gong sound and my name
> > >appeared in the VOX window.)  I didn't do a voice check as 
> > that would 
> > >have sown confusion)
> > >
> > >Then when I was approaching Barton, John suggested I disconnect and
> > > reconnect the server, and this enabled him to see me, so I 
> > chose to go 
> > >back to EGCC for another go.  This was successful, and I 
> > established on 
> > >the ILS and was handed over to Tower successfully.  No 
> > frequency change 
> > >problem here. I have the default scenery only, so I was on 
> > the correct 
> > >runway! There was obvious confusion on the ground and the ATCO (I'm
> > > sorry, your voice was unfamiliar, so I don't know who you 
> > are <g>) was 
> > >having a battle with aircraft all over the place.
> > >
> > >So he asked me to go around - no problem - except that he 
> > then forgot 
> > >about me (twice in one night - I'll get a complex) and when I was 9
> > > miles south west of Manchester, still on the runway heading 
> > he gave me 
> > >and maintaining 3000 feet as instructed, my wife informed me that a
> > > gutter had burst and water was pouring under the patio doors 
> > (the real 
> > >and virtual weather were both terrible).  I have to confess 
> > that I was 
> > >a bit irritated by now, so I simply switched off my PCs and left!
> > >Wonderful Windows XP means that it didn't create havoc with 
> > my files, 
> > >so here I am this morning.
> > >
> > >In summary, I had no way of knowing the radar didn't pick me 
> > up, so I 
> > >was puzzled why I got no ATC cover until I was inside the TMA. Not
> > >being able to see other aircraft or file a flight plan is a 
> > major pain. 
> > >For me, the pleasure of on line flying is 30% having to be as
> > >disciplined as I would be real world flying, 30% live ATC 
> > and 30% being 
> > >able to see other aircraft, so losing 2 out of the 3 was a 
> > >disappointment.  With the gutter problem, my petulence 
> > overcame my sang 
> > >froid! Sorry Manchester Tower <grovel>.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Peter
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 



Other related posts: