Why has everyone defected to paid FSes after landing here?

[jwocky]

Well, yeah, and there we go again ... need a lot of formalism, just to have a bunch of guys flying from A to B self-controlled.

See, here is the thing: MP has for me several possible technical meanings, or would have in a perfect world and in very long terms.

1.) This big all flying together controlled with an ATC who cuts the not so perfect pilots also some slack. For that, I can actually imagine VATSIM. However, if I get a hardass-ATC and he tries to go on me rampant because I am not the absolute perfect real life pilot, I am out. Because the trick is to bring people together whose tastes fit, or, if the tastes don't fit entirely, find a bearable compromise. Strict procedures have a purpose in rl, of course. And I understand, that some like to go that way in sims as well. But not everybody. So I see VATSIM really more for those who like it.

2.) The just seat on your pants chaos flight ... haven't been at the Golden Gate Bridge lately. The "social flight" as in fly somewhere enjoy the landscape but basically, it's about the chitchat. The "tourist flight" as in lets see whether Palenque is implemented to Gizah or the Cologne Cathedral. Such stuff. I saw some people fly some acrobatics just for the fun last week. Why not. Of course, it would make any ATC with some stick in his rear run nutz because they didn't announce it, it was spontaneous.

3a.) The combat simming. Now, that whole subject is to me so complex (or maybe I am just such a bad fighter jet pilot that it hangs too high for me), that I consider it a subject on it's own. People for example like to bomb places, and it would be "nice" if those places would take actually damage ... but of course not in general, because the airport that just got nuked should be of course still availabel for an airliner who has nothing to do with the combat flight.

3b.) The historical simming. Now, best example for historical simming overlapping with some kind of combat fighting are Lester's WWI flights and Swamp has something going on with WWII fighters. But of course, you don't want to do it all the time "Last Countdown" style. Zeros as targets fro F-14s was a bit one-sided, wasn't it?

4.) Technical simming. This has several meanings in fact. One part is pretty simple: Palens in development need testing and not always is it feasible to do that with twenty other people around who maybe get bothered if your AP runs wild while you are in a queue with them in approach to an airport. Since we are thinking about ways to get planes produced faster and in higher quality, we will have for a long time a lot more flying construction sites around.
Another part of technical flying is, what we all saw when plane disasters happened. People tried to simulate possible scenarios for the last flight of MH-370, I saw some flying AF-447 situations, I flew myself several times over the ridges near SKRG.

See, my worry is, everybody suggests just that one thing, he likes to do and just that one tool that is optimal for what he likes as the one and only thing. Now of course, everybody has ideas, everybody has wishes, but honestly, we know, there are only a few people here capable and willing (but not able due to time and hardware limitations) to stem such a complete redefinition of a project this size. I am currently not even reliable able to contribute to such a thing, I have too much other stuff going on and to be honest, the way the community worked lately, I have also a hard time to motivate myself to the bigger things. I play around with my Antonov, did a little bit 707 for the USA Tour, but most of my FG time goes into experiments with all the things, I never got around to while I dished out two, three, sometimes five quick repairs per USA Tour leg. Right now, I don't see even the nucleus of a dev team for a core development here, nor do I see a sufficient number of people stepping up to even get to the manpower. So, we lack volunteers and the ways to organize them. Look around in this thread ... a lot of agreement ... so, who does it? Reliably? That's the problem.

[Octal450]

Only ARTCCs can create "official" events. You can talk to an artcc and make one, but it won't be official on VATUSA unless an artcc does it. Our event coordinator is an S2, BTW.

J

[Falcon]

This is always true jwocky. if you get a hard-ass controller you wont be able to do what you want, however, for myself, i put "/T/ Transmit and receive. (New Pilot on freq.)" the "new pilot on freq" clause tells the controller that A) I don't know what the hell I am doing. B) They will generally treat me nicer because they think that I am the first ATC that I have ever talked to, and therefore not be a "hard-ass". Its little tricks like this that will make the ATC ice to you. And Also, If it is a Center Controller that you are talking to, All you have to do is make initial contact, insert the squawk code into your TA/RA (Mode C) transponder, and your done. No more coms with the acceptation of traffic advisories.

(Changed name because Defected implies capital treason.)

[jwocky]

Yeah, "defected" is a hard word.

See, my problem is not that I really search for ways to be just compatible to the one or the other system. I try to figure out, what we actually would want (as whole entity, with all those different tastes included) and then, when I have figured it (or someone told me) I start to think, how it could be possible to get there. But right now, I still chew on the "where to go part".