IXEG and Xsquwakbox

[jonfrederickl]

Although it's not really to do with the 737, it ruins my experience with the 737 so it kinda is?

Anyway, how do I change my render distance for other people (other planes) in VATSIM?

Regards

[poodster]

It's in the squawkbox preferences

[jonfrederickl]

All I see is how many aircraft to render, not render distance.

[Ben Russell]

This is a squawkbox issue and has nothing to do with the IXEG product.

Good luck.

[jonfrederickl]

3 hours ago, Ben Russell said:

This is a squawkbox issue and has nothing to do with the IXEG product.

Good luck.

 

I tried to relate it but obviously not hard enough . I will leave it alone, good day.

[poodster]

1 hour ago, jonfrederickl said:

I tried to relate it but obviously not hard enough . I will leave it alone, good day.

In the preferences of squawkbox, you will see render distance near the bottom as well. It'll say something like "max render distance for full plane"

[jonfrederickl]

19 hours ago, poodster said:

In the preferences of squawkbox, you will see render distance near the bottom as well. It'll say something like "max render distance for full plane"

will check that out, thanks

[jonfrederickl]

@Cameron could you close this thread before I get hundreds of dislikes? 

[Defiance_co]

There ya go jon

You're in the green now lol

Tony

[jonfrederickl]

haha. thanks, I guess 

[jonfrederickl]

let's hope we are not banned for boasting 

Edited June 7, 2016 by jonfrederickl

[dornier]

Just wanted to say that flying the IXEG 737 using VATSIM really makes you feel like you're really flying the line!  What an experience, it's almost like really flying.  If you're an aspiring pilot, student, or real pilot, VATSIM and the IXEG 737 combination is a real winner.  One of these days I'll try Pilotedge, but for now VATSIM is great.

[mmerelles]

2 minutes ago, dornier said:

Just wanted to say that flying the IXEG 737 using VATSIM really makes you feel like you're really flying the line!  What an experience, it's almost like really flying.  If you're an aspiring pilot, student, or real pilot, VATSIM and the IXEG 737 combination is a real winner.  One of these days I'll try Pilotedge, but for now VATSIM is great.

once you try PE there is no looking back. be prepared to suffer, to get stressed, to study/learn a lot 

you have a 2 weeks entirely free trial you can fly as much as you like.

[dornier]

10 minutes ago, mmerelles said:

once you try PE there is no looking back. be prepared to suffer, to get stressed, to study/learn a lot 

you have a 2 weeks entirely free trial you can fly as much as you like.

I'm looking forward to trying Pilotedge soon.  I wish I had tools like this over 35 years ago when I was learning how to fly.  Beats reading a book anytime!

[Tim013]

7 hours ago, mmerelles said:

once you try PE there is no looking back. be prepared to suffer, to get stressed, to study/learn a lot 

you have a 2 weeks entirely free trial you can fly as much as you like.

I would disagree a bit with you on the Pilot Edge thing.  Having a lot of real world experience, I thought that PE would be great, as they try to simulate real ATC procedures.  While this is a good concept, it falls flat when you start to see how they do it.  The positive of guaranteed ATC coverage during open hours, in my opinion is overshadowed by the unrealistic combining of frequencies. 

I'm sure people who are only simulator fliers enjoy the nonsensical frequency combining, and don't care that you can be on the CLNDEL freq at KSAN, and hear aircraft being vectored at KLAX.  To those people, chatter is chatter is chatter.  To a certificated pilot, who PE is ultimately marketed to, that type of frequency shenanigan is a deal breaker.  The first time I flew on PE, I kept checking my radios because I thought I had the wrong frequency dialed in, or I had COM2 hot.

Lastly, the service area is small.  I got bored making the same short hop flights over, and over, and over, and over.  Whey you're first working them out, it's fun to learn the nuances of the procedures of southern California airspace.  Once you get comfortable with it, it becomes less than fun because it's the same routes. 

I'm glad I did the two week trial.  I almost made the mistake of signing up for real and paying for it without doing the free preview first. 

Maybe this is nitpicking too, but the controllers are no better than the best Vatsim controllers, and frankly, they are a bit over the top.  In my years of flying, I've never really dealt with controllers that act the way the PE controllers do.

So, in a nut shell, for me, PE is a good concept, just poorly executed.

Tim

[Eddie]

I would disagree a bit with you on the Pilot Edge thing.  Having a lot of real world experience, I thought that PE would be great, as they try to simulate real ATC procedures.  While this is a good concept, it falls flat when you start to see how they do it.  The positive of guaranteed ATC coverage during open hours, in my opinion is overshadowed by the unrealistic combining of frequencies. 

I'm sure people who are only simulator fliers enjoy the nonsensical frequency combining, and don't care that you can be on the CLNDEL freq at KSAN, and hear aircraft being vectored at KLAX.  To those people, chatter is chatter is chatter.  To a certificated pilot, who PE is ultimately marketed to, that type of frequency shenanigan is a deal breaker.  The first time I flew on PE, I kept checking my radios because I thought I had the wrong frequency dialed in, or I had COM2 hot.

Lastly, the service area is small.  I got bored making the same short hop flights over, and over, and over, and over.  Whey you're first working them out, it's fun to learn the nuances of the procedures of southern California airspace.  Once you get comfortable with it, it becomes less than fun because it's the same routes. 

I'm glad I did the two week trial.  I almost made the mistake of signing up for real and paying for it without doing the free preview first. 

Maybe this is nitpicking too, but the controllers are no better than the best Vatsim controllers, and frankly, they are a bit over the top.  In my years of flying, I've never really dealt with controllers that act the way the PE controllers do.

So, in a nut shell, for me, PE is a good concept, just poorly executed.

Tim

It's also the cost of about three fully priced payware aircraft a year, and I can guarantee you that you'd enjoy the three aircraft more on VATSIM than if you spent the money on a PE subscription.

I also dislike that PE seems to be a rather cultish community where they see PE as the only service worth using and look down on VATSIM and IVAO users just because they're free services and aren't always online (but at least we get coverage outside of ZLA)

[mmerelles]

1 hour ago, Tim013 said:

I would disagree a bit with you on the Pilot Edge thing.  Having a lot of real world experience, I thought that PE would be great, as they try to simulate real ATC procedures.  While this is a good concept, it falls flat when you start to see how they do it.  The positive of guaranteed ATC coverage during open hours, in my opinion is overshadowed by the unrealistic combining of frequencies. 

I'm sure people who are only simulator fliers enjoy the nonsensical frequency combining, and don't care that you can be on the CLNDEL freq at KSAN, and hear aircraft being vectored at KLAX.  To those people, chatter is chatter is chatter.  To a certificated pilot, who PE is ultimately marketed to, that type of frequency shenanigan is a deal breaker.  The first time I flew on PE, I kept checking my radios because I thought I had the wrong frequency dialed in, or I had COM2 hot.

Lastly, the service area is small.  I got bored making the same short hop flights over, and over, and over, and over.  Whey you're first working them out, it's fun to learn the nuances of the procedures of southern California airspace.  Once you get comfortable with it, it becomes less than fun because it's the same routes. 

I'm glad I did the two week trial.  I almost made the mistake of signing up for real and paying for it without doing the free preview first. 

Maybe this is nitpicking too, but the controllers are no better than the best Vatsim controllers, and frankly, they are a bit over the top.  In my years of flying, I've never really dealt with controllers that act the way the PE controllers do.

So, in a nut shell, for me, PE is a good concept, just poorly executed.

Tim

I do understand what you say, but you have to account the following to be a bit more comprehensive on the implementation:

1. To guarantee different controllers per frequency you need a lot of staff, this means a lot of salaries $$, the network subscribers should be substantially bigger. Check the roster statistics do some maths and you will understand this.

2. The area is small in purpose, if you offer a substantially bigger geographical area you rarely will encounter queueing for takeoff, for landing, receiving instructions for avoiding traffic, having busy frequencies, etc, which is part of the key philosophy someone should learn and experience. Again the number of subscribers should be substantially bigger to operate a bigger area and get the whole purpose of the network done, but in the meantime they should maybe try to rotate the working area time to time.

3. Shared frequencies/controller staffing audio is a result of that, achieving busy audio for you to work for to get your channel space while the network grows to keep the business running. Still you need to dial real life frequencies or the controller will let you know the mistake.

 

As you said you have a few shortcoming on the network implementation (#different staffing and restricted area of operation), this is consequence of the business that has to sustain to keep going. This is kind of difficult chicken/egg game, you need more subscribers to grow, subscribers demand worldwide coverage to enter.

 

Having said that, Vatsim has no comparation to PE -in terms- of real life training and procedures, have you heard vatsim enthusiast performing on pe? my god! people that enters blank from scratch perform better and learn much faster.

[Eddie]

29 minutes ago, mmerelles said:

2. The area is small in purpose, if you offer a substantially bigger geographical area you rarely will encounter queueing for takeoff, for landing, receiving instructions for avoiding traffic, having busy frequencies, etc, which is part of the key philosophy someone should learn and experience. Again the number of subscribers should be substantially bigger to operate a bigger area and get the whole purpose of the network done, but in the meantime they should maybe try to rotate the working area time to tim.
 

2

VATSIM regularly has heavy traffic at airports like LAX, Heathrow, Amsterdam, etc., and that's with worldwide coverage. Not an excuse, especially for those of us that like a little variety in our flying.

[sizziano]

That has always been my biggest gripe with PE, the freq combining. It's so damn distracting that I can't really get past it even with the super high quality ATC. First time I went on PE was for one of Catstrators group flights from KSAN-KLAS in the 732 and boy was it fun! I even got yelled at for a long landing at LAS, realistic!

[Tim013]

15 hours ago, sizziano said:

That has always been my biggest gripe with PE, the freq combining. It's so damn distracting that I can't really get past it even with the super high quality ATC. First time I went on PE was for one of Catstrators group flights from KSAN-KLAS in the 732 and boy was it fun! I even got yelled at for a long landing at LAS, realistic!

I agree.  The frequency mish-mash is so unrealistic, that it's a definite deal breaker for me.  I understand their business model, and how they need to set it up to make it profitable and affordable, but that doesn't mean that it's what people want, or are willing to pay for.  As I said, for simulator pilots who don't know any better, they probably think all of the frequency chatter is the shiznitz, but for real pilots, it's nothing short of distracting, to the point of being annoying.

 

That's exactly what I'm talking about, the getting yelled at part.  Real world controllers don't act the way the PE controllers do with the nitpicking dress downs I've heard on their network. 

In the real world, if you blow a heading, the controller will ask you for your heading.  After you tell them, they will assign the same heading they originally gave you, or assign a new revised heading.  You know you blew the heading, and the controller knows, and that is the end of it.  Enough said.  There's no on frequency b***h out from the controller.

On Pilot Edge, when you blow a heading, the first words out the controllers mouth often times is "where are  you going?"  This is followed by an uncomfortable lecture for the poor pilot playing a game, that goes on for a good 30 seconds.  Completely unlike the real world.  Another deal breaker for me.

Tim

Edited July 7, 2016 by Tim013

[sizziano]

9 hours ago, Tim013 said:

I agree.  The frequency mish-mash is so unrealistic, that it's a definite deal breaker for me.  I understand their business model, and how they need to set it up to make it profitable and affordable, but that doesn't mean that it's what people want, or are willing to pay for.  As I said, for simulator pilots who don't know any better, they probably think all of the frequency chatter is the shiznitz, but for real pilots, it's nothing short of distracting, to the point of being annoying.

 

That's exactly what I'm talking about, the getting yelled at part.  Real world controllers don't act the way the PE controllers do with the nitpicking dress downs I've heard on their network. 

In the real world, if you blow a heading, the controller will ask you for your heading.  After you tell them, they will assign the same heading they originally gave you, or assign a new revised heading.  You know you blew the heading, and the controller knows, and that is the end of it.  Enough said.  There's no on frequency b***h out from the controller.

On Pilot Edge, when you blow a heading, the first words out the controllers mouth often times is "where are  you going?"  This is followed by an uncomfortable lecture for the poor pilot playing a game, that goes on for a good 30 seconds.  Completely unlike the real world.  Another deal breaker for me.

Tim

 

Damn great point. I understand trying to be as professionals as possible (to the point it's ironically unrealistic) but the on freq lectures are a bit much.

[mmerelles]

don't be that naive guys, on the real life:

1. tons of controllers are rude and have no patience at all.

2. you will find lot of shared frequencies as well at certain areas / time frames

 

if you have not experienced that, you are not a real life pilot or you have not flown enough. Don't trust me? just google for it to see people notes or better watch it on youtube.

Edited July 8, 2016 by mmerelles
misspelling

[mmerelles]

Pilotedge as real as it gets. The place were you also learn to deal rude busy controllers

real life example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYROSTV_KVg

 

Edited July 8, 2016 by mmerelles

[mmerelles]

10 hours ago, Tim013 said:

In the real world, if you blow a heading, the controller will ask you for your heading.  After you tell them, they will assign the same heading they originally gave you, or assign a new revised heading.  You know you blew the heading, and the controller knows, and that is the end of it.  Enough said.  There's no on frequency b***h out from the controller.

On Pilot Edge, when you blow a heading, the first words out the controllers mouth often times is "where are  you going?"  This is followed by an uncomfortable lecture for the poor pilot playing a game, that goes on for a good 30 seconds.  Completely unlike the real world.  Another deal breaker for me.

Tim

 

as real as it gets

 

 

[Eddie]

When people are paying for a service like ATC for their flight sim, they expect it to be courteous and professional, not rude for the sale of it. Even on VATSIM, where none of the controllers are being paid, you'd never see anything like that - the norm is courteous and friendly service. I certainly wouldn't be impressed if the supposedly superior, more professional paid service was less so.