[jhb_airlines] Re: FPI last night

  • From: gwinsk@xxxxxxx
  • To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 10:14:20 +0100

Hi Tom,
You can do that with just one computer and two monitors. I display the ATOC 
window on 
my lower screen, below the instrument panel. The fact that I can't see the 
charts is down 
to the ATOC sensitivity to graphic card drivers. I recall you saying you can 
run three 
monitors from the one XP driven machine. In theory, I could have a full screen 
display, 
for the airfield charts. In practice, I'm not sure how much better that would 
be. My 
Tuesday problem was my inabillity to find the route to 24L. When, yesterday, I 
looked at 
the ATOC chart, on my main monitor, it was to find the chart doesn't have any 
taxiways 
to 24L!
 The other option, I'll look at today, is Airport Chartviewer. I've only looked 
at it when not 
flying. It seems to scan the AFCAD files, to derive its data.
Which brings me to your final benefit, the one I've had in mind, reducing the 
load on the 
other PC. What I'd intended doing was reserve the existing PC for Flightsim, 
running 
spreadsheets, email, etc on the second PC. To run two as a network, does the 
second 
PC have to have it's own keyboard, mouse, etc, to be able to boot up? I ask 
because the 
need for benchspace might then rule it out.

Gerry Winskill
gwinsk@xxxxxxx



On 12 Aug 2004 at 8:49, Tom Smith wrote:

> Hi Gerry
> with Atoc on a second computer you will be able to see the airfield
> charts and while taxiing  see where you are going..It is much easier
> to move from one screen to another with out effecting fs. in all its
> much nicer to use + you can run weather and other programs on it and
> take the load off the fs one Tom ----- Original Message ----- From:
> <gwinsk@xxxxxxx> To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday,
> August 12, 2004 6:44 AM Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FPI last night
> 
> 
> > 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: