SquawkBox
SquawkBox for Microsoft Flight Simulator
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dangermouse
Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 1
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:33 am Post subject: So, SB3 is a VATSIM-only product after all? |
 |
|
Joel,
It's good news to see that this product is finally coming to fruition, I'm sure you and the family must be thrilled that this is nearly over. However, your front page news item leads me to believe that the original goal of making it available to online ATC networks would appear to have been missed. From your 'about' page :
| Quote: | SquawkBox 3.0, currently under development, is being written from scratch by Joel DeYoung. It is intended to further the online flying concept by providing a stable, easy-to-use environment for pilots to connect to online ATC networks and to see other planes in the virtual world.
|
Maybe I've misread many of the posts over the last 3 years, but it appears that everyone on the beta team is VATSIM; all the testing is being done on VATSIM; the code review is being done by VATSIM. All of this after your recent comments about coding some final VATSIM requirements.
To quote your news release :
| Quote: |
So barring any major problems all that remains is for VATSIM to grant approval to SquawkBox 3 and for me to finish up the final holes in the documentation.
|
Am I to assume therefore, that the mere fact that no other network is mentioned, is EVER mentioned anywhere, means that despite all the words to the contrary from various parties, that this product was written for, and destined for, the VATSIM network only ?
As many in VATSIM have indicated that more than one pilot client would be in their interest (re FSINN), it is I believe, also in the best interest of the other networks to have more than one pilot client available, namely SB3.
To release it to one network only, much like ASRC was, would be a huge loss to the community as a whole, as many like myself have chosen to distance ourselves from VATSIM. Of course, if the other networks have told you to "take a hike, we're sticking with our own client", then so be it, but I've not read anything that says they've taken that line.
I would much appreciate knowing the availability to other networks.
Regards
DM |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Martin Georg/EDDF
Joined: 27 Aug 2002
Posts: 315
Location: Frankfurt am Main/Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hiya,
| Quote: | | As many in VATSIM have indicated that more than one pilot client would be in their interest (re FSINN), it is I believe, also in the best interest of the other networks to have more than one pilot client available, namely SB3. |
ATTENTION: Speaking for me personally now!
Well, I´m sure other networks would be happy to be able to use SB3. After all, I consider it the best and easiest to use new-generations client. However, the networks are in a tough competition for traffic, as lots of traffic are the base for a positive experience. And every pilot that flies elsewhere is a pilot not flying on VATSIM, and therefore this pilot decreases the fun for VATSIM users, and increases the fun elsewhere. This is not MY intention, and I don´t want to support this to happen. It would make me very angry to know that the work and time I contributed to the development of SB3 would be used to dissatisfy users on VATSIM, and to satisfy users of other networks.
I´m however absolutely convinced that the idea of using SB3 on networks other than VATSIM now and in future is purely theoretical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaxThrust
Joined: 25 Oct 2004
Posts: 5
Location: Turkey
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well said Martin.
They collected much more newcomers than VATSIM with their new shiney pilot client software..
Now it's our turn! 
Regards,
Bozhan Özsoy
www.flythy.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rabbitcancer
Joined: 28 Jul 2003
Posts: 308
Location: Innerleithen, Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I often don't understand what the motivation for these posts is....
Dangermouse,
Sb3 is available for other networks provided they can produce the infrastructure and obtain permission from Joel - but this is a privilege as VATSIM has provided resources and developers to assist Joel in creating this client. So despite what Joel may have said and what you have understood, surely a community that invests its own people and services to see a client complete deserves first dibs on what and where it is used.
The strength in VATSIM for becoming a partner with Joel to create SB3 only further highlights the weakness of other communities who have failed to address their own technology issues. Should VATSIM or Joel now be held accountable for the deficiencies of other networks or the absense of decent clients in the flightsim community as a whole?
VATSIM is free to use and available to anyone who wants to participate. I believe that this is doing enough to satisfy the needs of the flightsim community. If some people choose to use other networks, then let those networks come up with their own solution rather than rely on VATSIM to deal with all of the tough decisions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luke
Joined: 04 Feb 2004
Posts: 357
Location: Roswell, GA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Martin Georg/EDDF wrote: | | And every pilot that flies elsewhere is a pilot not flying on VATSIM, and therefore this pilot decreases the fun for VATSIM users, and increases the fun elsewhere. This is not MY intention, and I don´t want to support this to happen. It would make me very angry to know that the work and time I contributed to the development of SB3 would be used to dissatisfy users on VATSIM, and to satisfy users of other networks. |
Such an analagy is only viable if you consider online traffic to be a zero-sum game, that what is good for one network is automatically bad for another - and that there are only a fixed number of potential users and controllers for each network.
I have yet to say very many true zero-sum situations in the world, and I've certainly never seen any since I got my first PC in 1982. The history of software development and online networks has clearly indicated that easy interoperability is a net win for any organization that explicitly promotes it. From the FidoNet BBS network back in 1984 to the Internet today, organizations with clear specs and interoperability with their "competitors" usually end up successful.
Why? They grow the pie. It becomes easy to join and easy to use, then people join. They switch. They might be attracted to IVAO currently, but like the SB3 interface. That might bring them over to VATSIM at a later date.
Let me be perfectly candid and suggest that open systems are not necessarily good for the network, but to be honest I don't give a damn about IVAO, VATSIM, FPI or anyone else. My primary interest and goal is to maximize the utility of my own online experience, and that is best served by a pilot client that works on as many networks as possible. Not only is it more convenient for me, it encourages competition by networks and client software authors. Competition is good - for me. Vendor lock-in rarely benefits anyone other than the vendor; and my suspicion is that our current lag in released pilot clients is directly related to the de-facto monopoly SB2 had.
If you believe that your interests are secondary to those of the network and that vendor lock-in is a good thing for consumers, please be my guest. The past 25 years indicate otherwise.
| Quote: | | I´m however absolutely convinced that the idea of using SB3 on networks other than VATSIM now and in future is purely theoretical. |
If this is true, then it would mean that there is no client that can operate on both networks. That is both unfortunate and a strategic opportunity.
Cheers!
Luke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rabbitcancer
Joined: 28 Jul 2003
Posts: 308
Location: Innerleithen, Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I find the use of the word 'consumer' interesting when describing a non-profit environment.
This isn't about global domination - this is about supporting the collective needs of 68,000 members who are already committed to the VATSIM community.
Most companies could only dream of a client base that large.
Given that VATSIM is about quality, not quantity - I fully support Mr. Georg's interpretation of our needs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luke
Joined: 04 Feb 2004
Posts: 357
Location: Roswell, GA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rabbitcancer wrote: | | I find the use of the word 'consumer' interesting when describing a non-profit environment. This isn't about global domination - this is about supporting the collective needs of 68,000 members who are already committed to the VATSIM community. |
I don't. I'm puzzled why you would make a statement that in effect states that the goal is to support the status quo.
I think everyone says that traffic is the primary driver of the online experience. More traffic = better experience. I am not interested in "online global domination", I'm just following the basic premise that we all believe in - more traffic, better experience for the users. Or do you not believe this?
| Quote: | | Most companies could only dream of a client base that large. |
A moderate- to high-traffic evening on ServInfo will show around 400 connections to the network. Based on my own back of the napkin calculations, that's a participation rate of just over one half of one percent. I'd be curious to see what percentage of those 68,000 logged in within the past 90, 180 or 365 days - or if they ever logged in at all. Most businesses can easily claim 68,000 customers if they count everyone who walked through the store in the past 3 years, never mind wether they actually bought something or not.
| Quote: | | Given that VATSIM is about quality, not quantity - I fully support Mr. Georg's interpretation of our needs. |
Given that VATSIM is about quality, not quantity, I fully question why you brought up the 68,000 in the first place. 
Look, we're going in circles because we haven't figured out what exactly it is we want. Does more traffic equal a better online experience? If so, then we want to boost traffic and participation rates. Do we see network members as a static, or dynamic pool that can be grown? Does the stratification of pilot clients and networks benefit networks and pilots, or merely one party (the corollary is that if pilots make an investment learning SB3/FSINN/IVAP, how likely are they to switch networks?)
These are philosophical questions, not technical ones, and probably not suitable here. I'll close by stating that I have yet to say any network or software authoring group explicitly deal with them.
Cheers!
Luke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rabbitcancer
Joined: 28 Jul 2003
Posts: 308
Location: Innerleithen, Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
lol...all good points, Luke...
Perhaps they could use you on the tech review board...
Yes - I must admit - growth is important -although, in answering the 68,000 members, what it does address is that there is dramatic interest in the network. In terms of actual online participation, you need only to struggle with the existing client to discover why the active numbers seem to disagree with the registered.
At the end of the day, accomplishing a one-size-fits-all solution is logistically difficult considering the amount network calibration needed. The question that should be asked is: Has IVAO or other networks approached Joel with their assistance in achieving a feasible network model for this client? Until all of the networks prescribe to the same model and vision for their technology, Joel would have a monumental task attempting to appease the needs of every network that sought a client such as SB3...Just look at the difficulty that the FS-Inn developers have had adapting their client to ONE network...
All of this is very blue-sky, so I suppose we can resign ourselves to the current situation and chalk these suggestions down to future development. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Norman
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 1583
Location: N Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 12:00 pm Post subject: Re: So, SB3 is a VATSIM-only product after all? |
|
|
| dangermouse wrote: |
Maybe I've misread many of the posts over the last 3 years, but it appears that everyone on the beta team is VATSIM; all the testing is being done on VATSIM; the code review is being done by VATSIM. All of this after your recent comments about coding some final VATSIM requirements.
|
See thats the problem. Just because something is not written in a public forum doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
I know of at least two SB3 testers who had SB3's security ammended by the SB3 developer in order to try things on IVAO. A senior member of IVAO staff has also view SB3 on the IVAO network.
So did it work?
It connected.
It sent position reports.
It could communicate via text both on frequency and private messages
IVAO pilots could see the SB3 pilots.
SB3 could see other users on IVAO but with modelmatching issues.
At NO time however were these pilots authorised by IVAO to use SB3 on that network. Its a two way street dangermouse!
My personal understanding is that at this time no agreement exists between the SB3 developer and any network part from VATSIM.
This does not make it a VATSIM compatable only, merely that at this time no other network has the same procedures in place between developers that exist in VATSIM.
The code review you mention is a code review on the VATSIM network. Just because they say yes that I am sure you understand isn't enough for the other networks.
Welcome to the forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulB
Joined: 28 May 2004
Posts: 74
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Luke wrote: |
I have yet to say very many true zero-sum situations in the world, and I've certainly never seen any since I got my first PC in 1982. The history of software development and online networks has clearly indicated that easy interoperability is a net win for any organization that explicitly promotes it. From the FidoNet BBS network back in 1984 to the Internet today, organizations with clear specs and interoperability with their "competitors" usually end up successful. |
I guess you've never seen the 100% proprietary environment AOL forces on their users?
How about the near 100% monopolies many software and computer hardware companies have on their markets, such as Microsoft, Electronic Arts, and Intel.
As for the flightsim community, it's almost always been a comparmentalized software environment.
ASRC doesn't work outside of VATSIM.
IVAO's and FPI's client software doesn't work outside of their respective networks.
Payware aircraft developers release aircraft that only work with specific versions of FS, and when a new version comes out, instead of patching their aircraft so they work with the new version, they force users to buy the software again.
The internet specifically, and the computer industry in general, is rampant with examples of proprietary products, and those companies have no interest in developing products that benefit anything but their bank accounts.
| Quote: | | If you believe that your interests are secondary to those of the network and that vendor lock-in is a good thing for consumers, please be my guest. The past 25 years indicate otherwise. |
I believe my interests go hand in hand with VATSIM as VATSIM needs it's users, and we need VATSIM. So therefore it's in the best interest of all that use VATSIM, and those who operate it, for the network to offer a unique experience that you can't get on other networks.
If there were 10 networks out there that were mirror images of each other, and all the software used on those networks was interchangable between them, each network would only get 1/10 of that pie you mentioned.
| Quote: |
If this is true, then it would mean that there is no client that can operate on both networks. That is both unfortunate and a strategic opportunity.
|
As stated above, the other networks DO have their proprietary software that can't be used on VATSIM, and that's how it should be. It is indeed a 2 way street, and you can't expect Joel and VATSIM to offer the source code of SB3 to anyone who wants it so they can adapt it to their network, or their network to SB3.
What would be the benefit of that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luke
Joined: 04 Feb 2004
Posts: 357
Location: Roswell, GA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PaulB wrote: | | I guess you've never seen the 100% proprietary environment AOL forces on their users? How about the near 100% monopolies many software and computer hardware companies have on their markets, such as Microsoft, Electronic Arts, and Intel. |
I do not disagree for a moment that certain vendor monopolies exist. My assertion is merely that monopolies and a lack of interoperability are bad for the users. Organizations and companies that provide a substandard user or customer experience tend to be surpassed over the long run.
For example, are you using AOL's priority interface to the internet? You're certainly not using a proprietary network protocol to connect to the Internet. I assume you're using an open, extendable operating system with a published API (like Linux, Win32 or MacOS) to connect, and we're all viewing this via open, published HTML standards.
I am curious as to what "monopoly" Intel has over its market. I can certainly buy an AMD CPU that is 100% guaranteed compatible with Intel's x86 offerings. Most people will say that AMD's Athlon64 are superior to Intel's offerings, either by feature or cost (or both). It's rather strange that right after AMD became the first x86 CPU maker to break 1Ghz, speeds went through the roof.
The only area where Intel had a monopoly was with 64-bit chips using a proprietary VLIW instruction set. There's even versions of Windows that support it. Hands up everyone who's using an Itanium. 
| Quote: | | The internet specifically, and the computer industry in general, is rampant with examples of proprietary products, and those companies have no interest in developing products that benefit anything but their bank accounts. |
Absolutely. And the computer industry is replete with examples that show that vendor lock-in is like the Maginot Line; it crumbles very quickly when faced with a nimbler opponent.
There's a reason why 95% of the PCs sold today use open hardware standards like the x86 instruction set, DDR memory, PCI slots and SCSI/IDE storage devices. Even Apple conceded defeat and today every single Macintosh uses the PCI expansion bus, AGP video cards and IDE hard drives. When even Steve Jobs decides that a certain amount of distinctiveness isn't worth it.....
If we all went with priorietary solutions, we'd be running OS/2 on an Itanium using RAMBUS memory and MicroChannel exapnsion devices, connecting using a PEP 19.2k modem with AOL and using AT&T mail. Each one of those was a distinctive and superior solution at the time it was launched. They did not fail on their merits or the experience they provided to the consumer/user.
| Quote: | | I believe my interests go hand in hand with VATSIM as VATSIM needs it's users, and we need VATSIM. So therefore it's in the best interest of all that use VATSIM, and those who operate it, for the network to offer a unique experience that you can't get on other networks. |
I have a small quibble, and a big one. The little one is that I do not need VATSIM any more than I need SB3 or FS9. What I need is an online network that provides a positive experience, and a flight simulator that does the same. Who specifically that is I have little interest in. I am not VATSIM, Joel DeYoung or Microsoft. The only vendors I am locked into in my life are my parents, and that was not by choice.
The major difference I think we have is that differentiation can occur farther up the value chain. It's more difficult to compete in such a circumstance, but adversity will strengthen you if you can deal with it. I had a nice trip from Atlanta to Toronto and back this weekend reading Paul Graham's book about startups and competing. You really should read a lot of his essays for free at www.paulgraham.com.
One thing that Paul writes about is deliberately seeking out the hardest problems you can find, and solving them. The paradoxical nettle is that if you make your network or pilot client as interoperable as possible, you've eliminated one area of competetive advantage that you have had, but you've taken away one from the people you're sharing the space with. If your sole competetive advantage is software lock-in, you'll have issues down the road. If it's not your main advantage, then you're essentially swapping pieces with the others in a war of attrition which can be a win.
I do see competition, because as e-loan.com says, when bankers compete, you win. Competition gives everyone a better experience. There's nothing that says competition must be nasty, negative or ill-tempered. However, stagnation or benevolence rarely produces the best results over time.
The secret which many technical folks often fail to grasp is that technology and relative technical merit is rarely the ultimate differentiator between competing ideals or models. As I mentioned earlier, many highly successful technologies have failed in the past due to lock-in and people's reluctance to be locked in.
| Quote: | | If there were 10 networks out there that were mirror images of each other, and all the software used on those networks was interchangable between them, each network would only get 1/10 of that pie you mentioned. |
That's assuming that all networks were equal, and had no differentiation. That is a very short-term phase, since inevitably differentiation would take place and the proportions would diverge. If a network made changes to improve the quality of the experience it provided, you'd see the proportions shift. If the other networks had a proprietary client then the shift might not happen. Good for them, but for the users?
| Quote: | | As stated above, the other networks DO have their proprietary software that can't be used on VATSIM, and that's how it should be. |
I don't deny that it is in their (the networks') best interests, but I question wether the best interests of members who do not self-identify with one network or another are being served.
| Quote: | | It is indeed a 2 way street, and you can't expect Joel and VATSIM to offer the source code of SB3 to anyone who wants it so they can adapt it to their network, or their network to SB3. What would be the benefit of that? |
The answer your question depends a great deal on wether Joel percieves his efforts to be a part of VATSIM, and wether SB3 is the "VATSIM client". If I was a software developer, my goal is to maximize the use of my software so it would be in my best interests to maximize the number of users who can run it. If I was a user, my goal would be to be able to switch networks just by picking a different server when connecting with no further effort on my part.
Now if I was a network, I'd not want to see that unless I was certain that the experience I provided was sufficiently superior that the choice of client software did not make a difference. People have stayed on VATSIM for months after IVAP's release, so I suspect that client software will not be as a great a differentiator as people think - in either direction.
Again, a lot of the answers to your questions depend on how you self-identify. However, I'm quite secure in history's verdict on lock-in in the computer industry. It's been tried, and in many places it's succeeded - until an open alternative that was good enough appeared.
Cheers!
Luke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulB
Joined: 28 May 2004
Posts: 74
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Luke wrote: | | If I was a user, my goal would be to be able to switch networks just by picking a different server when connecting with no further effort on my part. |
And I think therein lies the basic difference between us, and the ultimate dividing line that separates users of the various networks.
I have zero interest in switching networks, so a client that works on multiple networks does nothing for me.
As long as it works on VATSIM, I'm happy.
And I think you'd find that I'm in the vast majority of VATSIM users. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luke
Joined: 04 Feb 2004
Posts: 357
Location: Roswell, GA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PaulB wrote: | | And I think therein lies the basic difference between us, and the ultimate dividing line that separates users of the various networks. I have zero interest in switching networks, so a client that works on multiple networks does nothing for me. |
Yup. It's all how we self-identify.
What we can agree on is that it's a great piece of software. Having looked at the MTL that IVAO is trying to push out I'm incredibly grateful that Joel designed model sets as he did. No lock-in.
Cheers!
Luke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bfels
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rabbitcancer wrote: | | Just look at the difficulty that the FS-Inn developers have had adapting their client to ONE network... |
FSInn is independant from VATSIM and free to use anywhere, and offer the same services, as long as server is at least compatible with FSD 2052 from Marty Bochane.
Dont talk about something you dont know.
Took 2 weeks to be more compatible to VATSIM than anything else.
And still FSInn is compatible to any network now around, its the other networks that refuse FSInn, not a problem of adaptation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian
Joined: 03 Sep 2003
Posts: 96
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IVAO's IVAP client doesn't work with VATSIM, so why should SB3 automatically have to work with IVAO?
Besides, it's Joel's decision on what networks he wants to support. If I remember correctly, in the early phases of development, he made several attempts to contact IVAO regarding SB3 and either never got a response or they weren't interested.
FWIW, I'd be perfectly happy if SB3 only works on VATSIM. I have no interest in switching networks. If anyone belonging to another network wants to use SB3 so badly, there is a simple solution; come to VATSIM! =)
In addition, for those who do prefer to belong to multiple networks, a good cross-network client is already in existence and is in final beta stages (FSInn).
Last edited by Brian on Mon Feb 07, 2005 5:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
