SquawkBox
SquawkBox for Microsoft Flight Simulator
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Luke
Joined: 04 Feb 2004
Posts: 357
Location: Roswell, GA
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| dweese wrote: | | How do you approve something that has not been approved by the guy who created it? |
Well, if they're satisfied it works on their network, then I guess that's good enough.
Cheers!
Luke |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jacaru
Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I dont know, dont ask me 
But now IVAO seems to have no problems with people using SB3 on its network. Whats the problem now? Im getting confused. I thought IVAO wasnt supported because SB3 was not approved there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luke
Joined: 04 Feb 2004
Posts: 357
Location: Roswell, GA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jacaru wrote: | | But now IVAO seems to have no problems with people using SB3 on its network. Whats the problem now? Im getting confused. I thought IVAO wasnt supported because SB3 was not approved there. |
My experience typically shows that when you end up with a situation like this, a lot of it is based on incorrect assumptions and miscommunication and waiting on the other side, and it can usually get resolved very, very quickly. I do not know if that is the case here, but my suspicion is that if Joel & the IVAO folks got together, it could get resolved very, very quickly.
RC1 doesn't have the DLL to connect to IVAO, fwtw.
Cheers!
Luke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Martin Georg/EDDF
Joined: 27 Aug 2002
Posts: 315
Location: Frankfurt am Main/Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I very much hope that you are wrong, Luke.
IVAO doesn´t need SB3, it has it´s own client. VATSIM on the other hand DOES need SB3. IVAO can only profit from getting SB3, while VATSIM can only loose. I´m pretty sure that Joel won´t do anything that would weaken VATSIM at all, therefore I´m sure that SB3 will not work with IVAO for the forseeable future, which is for several years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rabbitcancer
Joined: 28 Jul 2003
Posts: 308
Location: Innerleithen, Scotland
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luke
Joined: 04 Feb 2004
Posts: 357
Location: Roswell, GA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Martin Georg/EDDF wrote: | | IVAO can only profit from getting SB3, while VATSIM can only loose. I´m pretty sure that Joel won´t do anything that would weaken VATSIM at all, therefore I´m sure that SB3 will not work with IVAO for the forseeable future |
There you go with that zero-sum thinking again, Martin!
(If you ever see the Clint Eastwood movie Kelly's Heroes you'll see Donald Sutherland in a great wacked-out role, "there you go with those negative thoughts again!")
I don't see how an interoperable pilot client "hurts" VATSIM or IVAO. I know it helps pilots.
If VATSIM provides a superior experience for its pilots, then having a client that also uses IVAO is a major plus, since we've just taken the cost of switching networks for a pilot to something approaching zero. You just pick a different server in the drop-down. Congratulations, VATSIM's just gained another user.
If there isn't a superior experience, then by all means place as many barriers to exit as possible. Force users to completely switch network and voice clients, and you'll stratify the relative user bases. The fact that the VATSIM membership has not defected en masse to the superior (relative to SB2) IVAP client should serve as a cautionary tale for those individuals who believe that satistfied IVAP users will immediately return to VATSIM when SB3 is released with no interoperability with IVAO.
Let me give you an example from the software world. In the United States, there are two major tax preparation software packages - TurboTax and TaxCut (much like VATSIM and IVAO). Most folks tend to stick with one or another, but every couple of years we might want to switch. I did this year - and the only reason I did so was that each package is able to read previous years' data created by the other package. They realise that with this feature, they can overcome stratification and gain new users.
It works the same way here. Make an interoperable client and if you provide a superior experience, you've eliminated a barrier to entry and make it more likely for folks to join you. If you don't provide a superior experience, then you have a problem.
I'm not going to go into the question of wether Joel is developing a "pilot client", or the "VATSIM client". His statements seem to indicate the former, and if this is true then his goal would probably be to make it as successful as possible.
My family grew up in a country that needed barbed wire, guard towers, dogs, tanks and machine guns to keep its citizens inside its borders. If VATSIM provides such a superior experience, if anyone would be against an interoperable client, it'd be the other networks.
I wouldn't be insecure, Martin.
Cheers!
Luke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joel
Site Admin
Joined: 04 Aug 2002
Posts: 1895
Location: British Columbia, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Luke wrote: | | My experience typically shows that when you end up with a situation like this, a lot of it is based on incorrect assumptions and miscommunication and waiting on the other side, and it can usually get resolved very, very quickly. I do not know if that is the case here, but my suspicion is that if Joel & the IVAO folks got together, it could get resolved very, very quickly. |
I have. And they have updated the "approved software" page as a result. The intention of having it listed there is that IVAO supervisors are not to kick SB3 testers off of IVAO. But apart from its use in the closed beta, it is not "approved".
Joel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joel wrote: | I have. And they have updated the "approved software" page as a result. The intention of having it listed there is that IVAO supervisors are not to kick SB3 testers off of IVAO. But apart from its use in the closed beta, it is not "approved".
Joel |
Ok, like Joel said, I have highlited this in red, so that people don't skim over it while reading that page with afterburners enaged and start all kinds of rumors  
Regards
Mike Kara
Assisstant Network Administrator
International Virtual Aviation Organization |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joel
Site Admin
Joined: 04 Aug 2002
Posts: 1895
Location: British Columbia, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for posting the clarification Mike!
Joel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No problem, now lets move on.
You go back to working on SB3 
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rcarlson
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 106
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Luke wrote: | | If there isn't a superior experience, then by all means place as many barriers to exit as possible. Force users to completely switch network and voice clients, and you'll stratify the relative user bases. The fact that the VATSIM membership has not defected en masse to the superior (relative to SB2) IVAP client should serve as a cautionary tale for those individuals who believe that satistfied IVAP users will immediately return to VATSIM when SB3 is released with no interoperability with IVAO. |
Luke, are you saying that people have NOT migrated en masse to IVAO because they don't want to change pilot clients? The client is one piece of the puzzle, yes, but I think it's a relatively small piece. I know that IVAP is probably quite a bit better than SB2, but I'm still on VATSIM because I tend to fly in the USA and VATSIM has more traffic in the USA. I'm also a controller in Boston, but even if I wasn't, I'd still prefer VATSIM because of the traffic.
Let's assume for a minute that IVAO and VATSIM had equal amounts of traffic in the USA, and that I wasn't a controller on VATSIM. Would I move to IVAO? Yeah, probably. Would the issue of whether or not my pilot client works on both networks have any bearing on the decision? Nope, none. Of all the steps required when switching networks (registering, reading policies, etc.), installing a new client would be a relatively insignificant step, and certainly not a show-stopper when it comes to deciding to try a new network.
In other words, I don't think that lack of interopability of SB3 (or any other client) on VATSIM and IVAO would cause nearly as much stratification as you may be suggesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CaptainKeith
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 18
Location: Lakewood, CO
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
You know Ive never understood why there is more than 1 network anyway. Its free, and the goal is to have the maximum amount of traffic and controllers. Seems odd doesnt it?
-Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Martin Georg/EDDF
Joined: 27 Aug 2002
Posts: 315
Location: Frankfurt am Main/Germany
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Luke,
i`m not going to get into this discussion in detail. The only thing I have to say that you are plain wrong. It is a zero-sum game, because the numbers ARE limited. You may bring tons of fancy examples, but they are all not depicting the truth going on our network day by day: Traffic has decreased - overall about 40%, and in lots of areas of "my" division up to 90%. And as you can see from the user numbers of IVAO, they don´t have the masses either. Traffic is limited overall, very much limited, way below a figure that would make anyone happy. This is not likely to change soon. And as long as this is not changing, its a zero-sum game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jacaru
Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Martin Georg/EDDF wrote: | I very much hope that you are wrong, Luke.
IVAO doesn´t need SB3, it has it´s own client. VATSIM on the other hand DOES need SB3. IVAO can only profit from getting SB3, while VATSIM can only loose. I´m pretty sure that Joel won´t do anything that would weaken VATSIM at all, therefore I´m sure that SB3 will not work with IVAO for the forseeable future, which is for several years. |
So according to Martin and seeing he is not being corrected by anyone, It is confirmed then. Squawkbox 3 is made having only VATSIM users in mind and for own VATSIM advantage. It is not to be used on any other network. It is not being developed for the average FS online user.
Why did we get then all the garbage that any interested network would be supported (this i guess meant that SB3 could be used on any network that didnt need any special support)? You could have said this in the first place.
The main difference here is that IVAO has his own team of developers that developed their own client. SB3 has special support for VATSIM and from VATSIM but i thought and has been said by others like Joel and maybe even you martin, that SB3 is not a VATSIM project. SB3 is mainly Joels effort but Ivap is IVAO effort.
Anyway i think this was a known secret. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jacaru
Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joel wrote: | | Luke wrote: | | My experience typically shows that when you end up with a situation like this, a lot of it is based on incorrect assumptions and miscommunication and waiting on the other side, and it can usually get resolved very, very quickly. I do not know if that is the case here, but my suspicion is that if Joel & the IVAO folks got together, it could get resolved very, very quickly. |
I have. And they have updated the "approved software" page as a result. The intention of having it listed there is that IVAO supervisors are not to kick SB3 testers off of IVAO. But apart from its use in the closed beta, it is not "approved".
Joel |
This isnt clear enough.
If you and IVAO have not made any arrangements to support SB3 on IVAO, why and who is beta testing on IVAO?
Last edited by jacaru on Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:52 am; 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
