Untitled PDF

BVA's Future - Boston Virtual ATC | Forums
1 of 16
http://forums.bostonvirtualatc.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=5478
Boston Virtual ATC | Forums

BVA Community Forums
Skip to content
Advanced search
BVA's Future
Post Reply
Subscribe topic
Bookmark topic
Email topic
Print view
Advanced search
First unread post 86 posts
1
2
3
4
5
Next
BVA's Future (#p40222)

Report this post (./report.php?f=44&p=40222)
Quote (./posting.php?mode=quote&f=44&p=40222)
(javascript:void(0);)
Postby Ferrari308guy Sun Jun 07, 2015 12:54 am
The members of this community need to make a decision about our future. This forum post
contains some background information and is meant to start an open discussion about
compatibility with other flight simulation platforms and growing our community.
We ask that members read this post in its entirety. Doing so is essential to understanding the
issue at stake and being able to participate in an informed discussion about BVAs future.
As you know, many flight simulation enthusiasts are unable to participate in BVA because they use
other platforms such as FSX: Steam Edition and Prepar3D. With the release of FSX: Steam Edition in
late 2014, the flight simulation world shifted from an FSX-centric industry to one that is based upon
multiple platforms.
Knowing that BVA would ultimately need to migrate to a new simulator or create a connection
method compatible across multiple simulation platforms, the Administration Team began
researching options in late 2014 for compatibility with multiple simulation platforms. While we
have had a few informal conversations about these options with members, we wanted to gather
enough information for a meaningful conversation before initiating this thread. We felt we reached
that point following a meeting with a potential partner on Friday, June 5.
Below are two options. As you read through each, keep in mind that these are not the only options
weve looked at, but are what the Administration Team believes to be the most practical. That
being said, these are not the only options. If you have additional ideas regarding the future of the
community, please share them.
ì`v* `
viivViV>i
/iiVi]\
pdfedtngV
6/9/2015 8:23 PM
2 of 16
Weve summarized two very complex options with the intention of providing additional information
as questions are asked. There are no secrets here: we have every intention of being completely
transparent about what we know and dont know and encourage you to ask questions and get
information before making and sharing your own opinion.
______________________________
Option 1
The first option involves licensing air traffic control and pilot technology from MetaCraft, a
developer of comprehensive ATC training and simulation platforms used by CTI programs around
the world. Similar software, also developed by MetaCraft, is used at VATSIM.
Using this software, BVA pilots would initially start a flight in 'single player' mode, then connect to
the server using a pilot client. This pilot client effectively turns the single player session into a
multiplayer session, allowing you to see other members planes in much the same way you do on
BVAs server today. This connection box model is used at IVAO, VATSIM, and PilotEdge. BVA would
use the Member TeamSpeak, connected to aircraft frequencies via BVAs own custom application,
to simulate radio communication, as no voice capability is included with the proposed license.
With this option, BVA would continue to maintain an exclusive server, and run the licensed
software on that server. Pilots would be able to connect to the server using any of FSX, FSX: Steam
Edition, or Prepar3D, but not X-Plane.
The cost for licensing this technology, effectively the same technology used on VATSIM, is
significant. BVA would need to raise approximately $10,000, 3 times our annual operating budget.
This would obviously require a major fundraising campaign. Furthermore, this cost covers only the
initial application, and would not necessarily entitle us to future updates.
To help protect the business interests of MetaCraft, we request that members do not share
information about this option/proposal outside of the community. In particular, keep the estimated
licensing fees confidential.
Option 2
A second option that was explored is merging with VATSIM's Boston ARTCC, which consists of
certified VATSIM air traffic controllers. In preliminary meetings designed to gauge possibility, the
ZBW ARTCC at VATSIM has shown a strong interest in joining with Boston Virtual ATC. Their staff is
excited about the talent, traffic, and community that Boston Virtual ATC has to offer.
In this scenario, BVA pilots and controllers would become members of the VATSIM Boston ARTCC.
Everything about BVA (our scenery updates, PRPs, Virtual FBO, resources, virtual airlines, etc.)
would remain available to members. While other VATSIM members would be permitted to fly in the
VATSIM Boston ARTCC, only BVA members will have access to our TeamSpeak server and community
resources. Our strong sense of community would remain as it is today.
VATSIM's exceptional radar and pilot technology allows pilots to connect to the VATSIM network
using virtually any flight simulation platform. FSX, FSX:SE, P3D, X-Plane, and even FS9 are all
supported. BVA would bring our highly trained controllers, as well as our training program, to
VATSIM.
VATSIM is a busy community that consists of primarily jetliner traffic. Combining Boston Virtual
ATCs general aviation presence with the busy airliner traffic of Boston ARTCC has the potential to
ì`v* `
make the new community busier and more realistic than any other.
viivViV>i
/iiVi]\
pdfedtngV
6/9/2015 8:23 PM
3 of 16
Boston Virtual ATC (consisting of pilots and controllers) is approximately than 10 times larger than
VATSIM's Boston ARTCC (consisting of controllers only).
______________________________
Both of these two options require a FlightDesk-like program that will display who is online, and that
will allow members to communicate with one another. In either case, our top priority as a
community will be for BVA members to continue to receive the same realism and professionalism
we experience on our network every day.
It is important to note that both of these options rely on the same technology. In either case, the
'connection box' method will be used. There are a number of advantages to this technology over
what we have today. In addition to cross-platform capability, members would be able to configure
their own time of day and weather. If internet is lost mid-flight, pilots could easily re-connect to
the server without having to re-start the flight. Formation flying and aircraft sharing will require a
few extra steps, but would still be possible.
The Administration Team does not, has not, and will not make decisions of this magnitude for the
community. Rather, the community needs to make a decision for the Administration Team to help
implement. The starting point to this decision is this forum discussion, which we encourage
members to get involved with.
You are Boston Virtual ATC. Please be a part of making this decision by sharing your views on
the two options presented and adding in suggestions for other alternatives that should be
considered by our members.
Last edited by Ferrari308guy (./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=57) on Sun Jun 07,
2015 12:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Re: BVA's Future (#p40225)

Postby Ferrari308guy Sun Jun 07, 2015 12:58 am
Several members will be meeting in Member TeamSpeak beginning at 4pm ET on Sunday, June 7 for
an informal start to this discussion. Please feel free to join us in the Member TeamSpeak at or after
that time.
A Pilot Meeting will be scheduled later this month for a more formal discussion about these options.
Top

Postby kofmandanny Sun Jun 07, 2015 6:13 am
For Option 2, would BVA members be required to register as VATSIM members?
ì`v* `
viivViV>i
/iiVi]\
pdfedtngV
6/9/2015 8:23 PM
4 of 16
Top

Postby tofutwitch11 Sun Jun 07, 2015 7:53 am
kofmandanny wrote:
For Option 2, would BVA members be required to register as VATSIM members?
Yes.
Top

Postby brainstorm1 Sun Jun 07, 2015 11:07 am
I've got two standpoints on this from both as a pilot and a controller. I love option 2 because for a
controller, means the world for us because we get traffic. I'm not a big fan of VATSIM only because
how big of a hassle it is to connect to their sever from single player. I also like Option 2 for another
reason, "Jetliner". I'm not a big GA fan either and I think it would be awesome to fly with other jets
in the server in my opinion. For option 1, everything seams great about that EXCEPT the cost. I
think as a community, we can get $10,000 the question is how much we will grow from this. It is
basically a shot in the dark for option 1. If I knew how many applied to BVA that have P3D or
anything except FSX, that will sway my position. And also with option 1, BVA will stay BVA but
option 2, it will not be exclusive anymore. I'm more neutral between these two options and
whatever happens, happens. I will follow wherever BVA goes to BUT if it came down to me, I say
option 2 because it is more of a safe bet and the "high road" of the two options. But if WE are
willing to take a chance to get $10,000, I'm all for it. I hope this makes sense.
Top

Postby kofmandanny Sun Jun 07, 2015 11:24 am
Option 1 is nice and all, but the TS-in-lieu for radio freqs, is a bit of a turn off. I understand it
wasn't included in the license/policy, but would it be much of a difference if it was cost-wise?
Otherwise, I'm all for using external connection tools and even Metacraft technology on the air
traffic control side.
Option 2 for me is very tough. I would love to tag along with this idea, but unfortunately about 3
years ago VATSIM decided to terminate my membership. Their reason stating: COC 1.4 (or 1.6, I
don't exactly remember) The VATSIM founders have the right to terminate your account at ì`v* `
any time
viivViV>i
/iiVi]\
pdfedtngV
6/9/2015 8:23 PM
5 of 16
without notice. I e-mailed them multiple times regarding the reason behind the termination itself,
and only got replies stating that exact same reason, over and over again. Eventually, I gave up and
joined a much more professional and welcoming community: BVA.
Now, if we do decide to go with Option 2, I would be really saddened not to be able to continue
doing what I love most: controlling and flying with you guys. If somehow, however, it would be able
for me to sort out my situation with VATSIM, I will gladly follow BVA in this venture.
Top

Postby flyingreferee Sun Jun 07, 2015 11:49 am
With option 2, will controllers still have their current certificationsb (if I am Class C Approach
certified on BVA, will I be Approach on VATSIM)? Or, by joining VATSIM, will all controllers have to
start over (i.e. Class C Ground, Class B Ground, etc.)? Also, will ATC mentors and instructors remain
mentors and instructors, and will BVA's current controller training program still be used, or will we
use VATSIM's training program? If we go with option 2, and a BVA member wants to become a
controller, will they go through VATSIM's training, tests, and SOPs (or what they have) or will BVA
keep it's initial ATC process, with reading the SOPs, and exams, etc? As said in the original post,
some sort of FlightDesk program would be needed. Would, depending on how the extension of FD
goes, would BVA bring FD over to VATSIM, or is a big part of these changes to eliminate FD, as an
alternative program or option will eventually be needed. Does VATSIM currently use a program like
FD, or what do they do that performs the same job as FlightDesk.
Option 2 really interests me. I like the idea of having more traffic on the server on a regular basis.
Yet, is there any concern with there being too many controllers, and not enough positions open on
a regular basis. For example, as it is now, it isn't hard to find a spot to control on any night of the
week, pretty much anywhere, including KBOS. With option 2, will there still be relatively the same
availability to control on a regular basis? Don't get me wrong, I think more controllers would be
awesome, but I would hope I would be able to control as much as I do now, and also hope for
generally more traffic.
Also, there was the big change in the ATC program, with the addition of having a base airspace
(ZNY, ZBW) and extending BVA's airspace into ZNY. What will happen to this? Will it be "forgotten"
with option 2?
One last thing-- I love being a member of BVA, so I hope that we can keep the same community feel
that we have now, and I can still say "I'm a member of BVA."
Again, I think option 2 could be very interesting and I personally like the idea. Sorry for asking so
many question (I didn't know I had so many until I started typing) and I appreciate any responses. I
thank the A-team for the opportunity to discuss the future of this great community.
Thanks,
Brandon
Top
ì`v* `
viivViV>i
/iiVi]\
pdfedtngV
6/9/2015 8:23 PM
6 of 16

Postby zploch Sun Jun 07, 2015 11:56 am
brainstorm1 wrote:
I've got two standpoints on this from both as a pilot and a controller. I love option 2
because for a controller, means the world for us because we get traffic. I'm not a big fan
of VATSIM only because how big of a hassle it is to connect to their sever from single
player. I also like Option 2 for another reason, "Jetliner". I'm not a big GA fan either and
I think it would be awesome to fly with other jets in the server in my opinion. For option
1, everything seams great about that EXCEPT the cost. I think as a community, we can
get $10,000 the question is how much we will grow from this. It is basically a shot in the
dark for option 1. If I knew how many applied to BVA that have P3D or anything except
FSX, that will sway my position. And also with option 1, BVA will stay BVA but option 2,
it will not be exclusive anymore. I'm more neutral between these two options and
whatever happens, happens. I will follow wherever BVA goes to BUT if it came down to
me, I say option 2 because it is more of a safe bet and the "high road" of the two options.
But if WE are willing to take a chance to get $10,000, I'm all for it. I hope this makes
sense.
Your points are all definitely valid on both options and they do make sense. Do you think asking
applicants which platform(s) they own would be beneficial to whatever avenue we take?
brainstorm1 wrote:
And also with option 1, BVA will stay BVA but option 2, it will not be exclusive anymore.
As stated in Phil's post, BVA is a lot larger than the VATSIM ZBW ARTCC. In my view, we would bring
in the pilot and controller traffic and they would bring the technology/software. In the end, I don't
feel that BVA would necessarily not be BVA anymore, more so along the lines of an equal to VATSIM
ZBW if not more.
kofmandanny wrote:
Option 1 is nice and all, but the TS-in-lieu for radio freqs, is a bit of a turn off. I
understand it wasn't included in the license/policy, but would it be much of a difference
if it was cost-wise? Otherwise, I'm all for using external connection tools and even
Metacraft technology on the air traffic control side.
Option 2 for me is very tough. I would love to tag along with this idea, but unfortunately
about 3 years ago VATSIM decided to terminate my membership. Their reason stating:
COC 1.4 (or 1.6, I don't exactly remember) The VATSIM founders have the right to
terminate your account at any time without notice. I e-mailed them multiple times
ì`v* `
viivViV>i
/iiVi]\
pdfedtngV
6/9/2015 8:23 PM
7 of 16
regarding the reason behind the termination itself, and only got replies stating that
exact same reason, over and over again. Eventually, I gave up and joined a much more
professional and welcoming community: BVA.
Now, if we do decide to go with Option 2, I would be really saddened not to be able to
continue doing what I love most: controlling and flying with you guys. If somehow,
however, it would be able for me to sort out my situation with VATSIM, I will gladly
follow BVA in this venture.
Very interesting. I'm not sure as to what VATSIM's reasons were for your termination, nor do I think
we could gather that information at this point in the process, but I definitely know it is something
we can inquire about. Again, that is something that would have to be brought up down the road at
some point.
Top

Postby brainstorm1 Sun Jun 07, 2015 12:06 pm
zploch wrote:
Your points are all definitely valid on both options and they do make sense. Do you think
asking applicants which platform(s) they own would be beneficial to whatever avenue
we take?
I think it would be because it gives an understanding of what most people have as a flight-sim.
Top

Postby kofmandanny Sun Jun 07, 2015 12:11 pm
Ok, understood Zac. Say, worst comes to worse scenario: We decide with Option 2 and VATSIM
doesn't pardon my suspension, is that pretty much the end of my career with BVA?
Top

Postby tofutwitch11 Sun Jun 07, 2015 12:12 pm
ì`v* `
viivViV>i
/iiVi]\
pdfedtngV
6/9/2015 8:23 PM
8 of 16
brainstorm1 wrote:
For option 1, everything seams great about that EXCEPT the cost. I think as a
community, we can get $10,000 the question is how much we will grow from this. It is
basically a shot in the dark for option 1. If I knew how many applied to BVA that have
P3D or anything except FSX, that will sway my position. And also with option 1, BVA will
stay BVA but option 2, it will not be exclusive anymore. I'm more neutral between these
two options and whatever happens, happens. I will follow wherever BVA goes to BUT if it
came down to me, I say option 2 because it is more of a safe bet and the "high road" of
the two options. But if WE are willing to take a chance to get $10,000, I'm all for it. I
hope this makes sense.
The $10,000 does not come at once; our upfront cost would be less than that (say around 2-3
thousand maybe). This would give us more time to raise the funds needed, if we went that route.
brainstorm1 wrote:
And also with option 1, BVA will stay BVA but option 2, it will not be exclusive anymore.
That is a great point. It will be a different environment -- and it's hard to say now how 'exclusive'
we would or would not be. With Option 1, obviously, we are on our own -- so very similar to how
we are now. But with Option 2, we are part of a larger community -- so keeping our independence
and exclusivity is more of a challenge. However, if BVA feels Option 2 is the better option, this is a
challenge we are up for.
Last edited by tofutwitch11 (./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=349) on Sun Jun 07,
2015 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

kofmandanny wrote:
Ok, understood Zac. Say, worst comes to worse scenario: We decide with Option 2 and
VATSIM doesn't pardon my suspension, is that pretty much the end of my career with
BVA?
I believe VATSIM will absolutely allow you to become a member. I do not think this will be an issue.
You stated it had been several years since whatever happened, so I think that if we went the
VATSIM route, you would be fine.
Top
ì`v* `
viivViV>i
/iiVi]\
pdfedtngV
6/9/2015 8:23 PM
9 of 16

tofutwitch11 wrote:
kofmandanny wrote:
Ok, understood Zac. Say, worst comes to worse scenario: We decide with
Option 2 and VATSIM doesn't pardon my suspension, is that pretty much the
end of my career with BVA?
I believe VATSIM will absolutely allow you to become a member. I do not think this will
be an issue. You stated it had been several years since whatever happened, so I think
that if we went the VATSIM route, you would be fine.
Thanks, I hope so as well.

Top

flyingreferee wrote:
With option 2, will controllers still have their current certificationsb (if I am Class C
Approach certified on BVA, will I be Approach on VATSIM)?
Yes, you will keep your certifications. There will be some type of 'checkout', but you would be able
to keep your certifications.
If we go with option 2, and a BVA member wants to become a controller, will they go
through VATSIM's training, tests, and SOPs (or what they have) or will BVA keep it's initial
ATC process, with reading the SOPs, and exams, etc? As said in the original post, some
sort of FlightDesk program would be needed. Would, depending on how the extension of
FD goes, would BVA bring FD over to VATSIM, or is a big part of these changes to
eliminate FD, as an alternative program or option will eventually be needed. Does
VATSIM currently use a program like FD, or what do they do that performs the same job
as FlightDesk.
ì`v* `
viivViV>i
/iiVi]\
pdfedtngV
6/9/2015 8:23 PM
10 of 16
Great question. If a BVA member would like to become a controller, they would have to pass the
initial VATUSA exam and then proceed on to vZBW/BVA. We would likely have some sort of program
similar to FD, though the exact details of that aren't clear yet. VATSIM does not have a program like
FlightDesk.
Option 2 really interests me. I like the idea of having more traffic on the server on a
regular basis. Yet, is there any concern with there being too many controllers, and not
enough positions open on a regular basis. For example, as it is now, it isn't hard to find a
spot to control on any night of the week, pretty much anywhere, including KBOS. With
option 2, will there still be relatively the same availability to control on a regular basis?
Don't get me wrong, I think more controllers would be awesome, but I would hope I
would be able to control as much as I do now, and also hope for generally more traffic.
Also, there was the big change in the ATC program, with the addition of having a base
airspace (ZNY, ZBW) and extending BVA's airspace into ZNY. What will happen to this?
Will it be "forgotten" with option 2?
One last thing-- I love being a member of BVA, so I hope that we can keep the same
community feel that we have now, and I can still say "I'm a member of BVA."
Again, I think option 2 could be very interesting and I personally like the idea. Sorry for
asking so many question (I didn't know I had so many until I started typing) and I
appreciate any responses. I thank the A-team for the opportunity to discuss the future of
this great community.
I don't think there would be a concern about having too many controllers. If we went with Option 2,
you could still control in other airspaces, but it would be a different process. You could 'visit'
another vARTCC for a period of time. You wouldn't be able to control vZBW one night and vZNY
another.
Top

A few more things: If we do implement something like FlightDesk with VATSIM, will the existing and
new VATSIM controllers use that program as well? Also, what will happen to our website and
forums? Will they merge with vZBW's?
Top
ì`v* `
viivViV>i
/iiVi]\
pdfedtngV
6/9/2015 8:23 PM
11 of 16

kofmandanny wrote:
A few more things: If we do implement something like FlightDesk with VATSIM, will the
existing and new VATSIM controllers use that program as well? Also, what will happen to
our website and forums? Will they merge with vZBW's?
vZBW controllers (most likely) would become BVA members, thus having access to the program we
create. It is up to the pilots to decide if that would be something they are interested in. I believe
our website and forums would remain, but these are details we haven't discussed too thoroughly,
because we are still very far off from a decision on which option to choose.
Top

Postby Evanet Sun Jun 07, 2015 12:41 pm
Great questions Brandon. Here are a few answers. I have had a few discussions with VATSIM's ZBW
ARTCC and so the information here is based on the proposed partnership that we discussed with
them. Pretty much the same as the information that Tom replied with earlier, but I do have a few
more details because Tom wasn't directly involved with that meeting.
With option 2, will controllers still have their current certificationsb (if I am Class C
Approach certified on BVA, will I be Approach on VATSIM)? Or, by joining VATSIM, will all
controllers have to start over (i.e. Class C Ground, Class B Ground, etc.)? Also, will ATC
mentors and instructors remain mentors and instructors, and will BVA's current controller
training program still be used, or will we use VATSIM's training program?
The proposal is that BVA controllers would retain their current ratings. There would be a few group
classes held on how to use the VATSIM radar client and to cover any of the differences in
procedures, and then a check-out on the position. (The check-out would be done by a
Mentor/Instructor). BVA ATC Mentors and Instructors, once checked out, retain those certifications.
I also anticipate that the BVA Instructors/Mentors will get checked out first, then check out other
BVA controllers to control on VATSIM. In our meeting, we talked about setting a goal of 2-3 weeks
to complete all group classes and get all 40 active BVA controllers checked out on VATSIM's
technology.
ì`v* `
viivViV>i
/iiVi]\
pdfedtngV
6/9/2015 8:23 PM
12 of 16
If we go with option 2, and a BVA member wants to become a controller, will they go
through VATSIM's training, tests, and SOPs (or what they have) or will BVA keep it's initial
ATC process, with reading the SOPs, and exams, etc?
The training, tests, and SOPs will be merged. Either way, we will ensure that the information from
each SOP is contained in the newly-created merged series. Both the VATSIM and BVA training
processes are very similar (in terms of having an initial test, followed by other training) already.
While we can expect some changes, I think the basics of what we do today won't change much.
VATSIM is much better than we are at dealing with climbing and descending aircraft into ZNY -particularly those from Europe. We definitely have the edge when it comes to anything general
aviation or Cape Air. The training program that we create will take both of those strengths and
combine them. We will decide either to start from BVA's stuff (and add in VATSIM content), vice
versa, or just start from scratch and re-write the SOPs using content from both. Either way, a
transition team of Instructors and volunteers would be created to undertake this task BEFORE we
start to talk check-outs or anything else.
As said in the original post, some sort of FlightDesk program would be needed. Would,
depending on how the extension of FD goes, would BVA bring FD over to VATSIM, or is a
big part of these changes to eliminate FD, as an alternative program or option will
eventually be needed. Does VATSIM currently use a program like FD, or what do they do
that performs the same job as FlightDesk.
Our intention was always to continue to use FlightDesk. However, given the comments from Bill, it
appears that won't be practical.
VATSIM uses a few similar programs to help show which controllers/pilots are online although in my
opinion none are as good as FlightDesk.
The VATSIM radar client -- which is an incredible application, and should be much more fun and
useful than what we have now -- includes the same elements as FlightDesk. However, as pilots
aren't able to access that application, there is still a need for a FlightDesk-like program to show the
map, private chat, etc.
With either option, we would need to create a replacement for FlightDesk and in either case the
plan is to create that application from scratch.
Option 2 really interests me. I like the idea of having more traffic on the server on a
regular basis. Yet, is there any concern with there being too many controllers, and not
enough positions open on a regular basis. For example, as it is now, it isn't hard to find a
spot to control on any night of the week, pretty much anywhere, including KBOS. With
option 2, will there still be relatively the same availability to control on a regular basis?
Don't get me wrong, I think more controllers would be awesome, but I would hope I
would be able to control as much as I do now, and also hope for generally more traffic.
ì`v* `
viivViV>i
/iiVi]\
pdfedtngV
6/9/2015 8:23 PM
13 of 16
BVA is much larger, and much more active, than the VATSIM ZBW ARTCC. We have ATC online
pretty much every night. It is less common to see controllers online in VATSIM's ZBW ARTCC unless
an event is happening. I expect that if we bring our level of activity and controlling -- along with
our traffic -- to VATSIM, we'll see that VATSIM's ZBW ARTCC is one of the busiest on the network for
traffic.
I don't imagine that controllers will find it difficult to staff positions around KBOS. In this scenario,
my intention would also be to keep the ATC Timetable and to coordinate who's online in much the
way is done today.
Also, there was the big change in the ATC program, with the addition of having a base
airspace (ZNY, ZBW) and extending BVA's airspace into ZNY. What will happen to this?
Will it be "forgotten" with option 2?
I'm not yet sure what will happen with ZNY. On VATSIM, controllers have the ability to control in
other ARTCCs as "visiting controllers". That's one option. If we chose this option and things went
well, another option is to work out a similar agreement with VATSIM's New York ARTCC.
One last thing-- I love being a member of BVA, so I hope that we can keep the same
community feel that we have now, and I can still say "I'm a member of BVA."
Couldn't agree more. To me, the community is US. As long as our members plan to stick around,
then the community feel that we have is going to be with us wherever we go. The name "BVA" may
not always be on the door but the spirit of the community will exist as long as we're together.
Top

evanet wrote:
Couldn't agree more. To me, the community is US. As long as our members plan to stick
around, then the community feel that we have is going to be with us wherever we go.
The name "BVA" may not always be on the door but the spirit of the community will exist
as long as we're together.
I think that, regardless of where we end up, the name "BVA" will always be on the door. Whether it
be a sub-community of vZBW or through the use of Metacraft, the name BVA isn't going anywhere.
Top
ì`v* `
viivViV>i
/iiVi]\
pdfedtngV
6/9/2015 8:23 PM
14 of 16

Postby Evanet Sun Jun 07, 2015 12:45 pm
One general comment I wanted to make. It's stated above but I wanted to re-state it anyway.
With or without FlightDesk, the "status quo" is NOT an option. As you have seen from the many
forum posts and questions, BVA cannot continue to support only FSX. It's time that we support FSX:
Steam Edition and Prepar3D as well. With or without the comments that Bill made with respect to
FlightDesk's license, making a move to a 'connection box'-style setup would have been necessary
regardless. As sad as I am to say it, we are living in the past a little bit on FSX multiplayer.
I should also mention that at this point, we're just talking. I'll be responding to questions about
either option. There are benefits and drawbacks to each and I will try to identify both when I reply
to questions. But please do not interpret my replies to mean that I am in favor of one option or
another. I'm just answering questions. I imagine most A-Team Members are doing the same.
Top

Postby slayer816 Sun Jun 07, 2015 1:15 pm
The following is personal opinion and does not reflect ANYTHING other than that.
Contrary with what someone said earlier, VATSIM is NOT better at climbing / descending ZNY traffic
than we are. My one flight on VATSIM since this discussion started resulted in negative feedback
within 15 minutes due to ZNY controllers attempting to annex more than half of ZBW airspace for
their purposes just because ZBW was not online. I've personally had negative experiences with both
controlling and flying with VATSIM in multiple ARTCC's. Unless we get to keep our program as is and
exactly as is with realism and professionalism, which all VATSIM's ZBW, ZNY, ZDC, and YUL centers
will have to abide by too; I feel that Option #2 is a step in the wrong direction and I will not be
accompanying it if decided. Not to mention the TXT requirement that controllers will have to text
pilots constantly also.
However I will give them credit for the technology; the ATC client is very easy and realistic. Say
goodbye to multiple computers and old school resources. The pilot connection software is also top
notch. If somehow, we had the ability to FULLY control the ATC structure and retain our standards
for professionalism and realism; this would be a good way to go. However, I just don't see that
happening.
Option #1 would be best for our sake; minus the unrealistic no-voice, no guarantees of software
support/updates, the work involved with creating sector files (if even possible) and the cost.
I will also state that kudos to the A-Team; I assure you they are doing everything in their power to
do what is best for each and every single one of you that can read this message, and I am grateful
for that. In the meantime; I am still the DIrector of Air Traffic Control, a controller, an Instructor, a
pilot, and a member of this wonderful community and I assure you we will be online this evening
ì`v* `
providing ATC just as we always do. Our server will be populated. And our controllers will viivViV>i
be
/iiVi]\
pdfedtngV
6/9/2015 8:23 PM
15 of 16
active. If nothing else is understood, understand that there is no end here. Not now, not ever.
Thanks,
Top
Quick Reply
Subject:
Display posts from previous:
Sort by
Post Reply
Subscribe topic
Bookmark topic
Email topic
Print view
86 posts
1
2
3
4
5
Next
Return to The Future of BVA
Jump to
Announcements
NOTAMs
Celebrating 6 Years
Squawkbox
The Future of BVA
General Discussion
Pilot Talk
Controller Talk
Troubleshooting
Events
FlightSimCon
FlightSimCon 2014
FlightSimCon 2013
Your Experiences
FSX Add-on Reviews
Random & Off-Topic Discussion
Communities
Military Operations
ì`v* `
viivViV>i
/iiVi]\
pdfedtngV
6/9/2015 8:23 PM
16 of 16
Cape Air Virtual

BVA's Virtual FBO
Questions & Answers
Technologies
Current Development
FlightDesk Bug Tracker
Live ATIS
Miscellaneous
General Feedback
Screenshots & Photographs
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Denutial, zploch and 0 guests
ì`v* `
viivViV>i
/iiVi]\
pdfedtngV
6/9/2015 8:23 PM

Untitled PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BVA's Future - Boston Virtual ATC | Forums

Boston Virtual ATC | Forums

BVA's Future (#p40222)

BVA's Future - Boston Virtual ATC | Forums

BVA's Future - Boston Virtual ATC | Forums

Re: BVA's Future (#p40225)

Re: BVA's Future (#p40226)

For Option 2, would BVA members be required to register as VATSIM members?

BVA's Future - Boston Virtual ATC | Forums

Re: BVA's Future (#p40228)

Re: BVA's Future (#p40230)

Re: BVA's Future (#p40231)

BVA's Future - Boston Virtual ATC | Forums

Re: BVA's Future (#p40233)

BVA's Future - Boston Virtual ATC | Forums

Re: BVA's Future (#p40234)

BVA's Future - Boston Virtual ATC | Forums

Re: BVA's Future (#p40237)

Re: BVA's Future (#p40239)

Re: BVA's Future (#p40240)

BVA's Future - Boston Virtual ATC | Forums

Re: BVA's Future (#p40241)

BVA's Future - Boston Virtual ATC | Forums

Re: BVA's Future (#p40243)

Thanks, I hope so as well.

Re: BVA's Future (#p40244)

BVA's Future - Boston Virtual ATC | Forums

Re: BVA's Future (#p40245)

BVA's Future - Boston Virtual ATC | Forums

Re: BVA's Future (#p40246)

Re: BVA's Future (#p40248)

BVA's Future - Boston Virtual ATC | Forums

BVA's Future - Boston Virtual ATC | Forums

Re: BVA's Future (#p40249)

BVA's Future - Boston Virtual ATC | Forums

Re: BVA's Future (#p40250)

Re: BVA's Future (#p40251)

BVA's Future - Boston Virtual ATC | Forums

Display posts from previous:

BVA's Future - Boston Virtual ATC | Forums

Cape Air Virtual

You might also like