| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ubeans2001
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 2
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:01 pm Post subject: Voice on unicom |
 |
|
| Hi there, I would like it alot if Squawk Box had voice for the Unicom frequency of 122.8. I get tired of typing text |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sean H
Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 14
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm no guru, but I think the voice thing is a user thing. I have used SB for years, and have had voice on 122.80 the whole time.
Lots of things impact on the text/voice combination. The user selects which voice room they wish to be in, as there are many servers.
In Australia we use the rw1.vatpac.org server and the the official 122.80 room is /unicom-au, NZ is /unicom-nz, and I believe this then goes for a lot of VATSIM airspace.
It is also very easy to edit the list of Private Rooms within SB.
IMHO it would be extremely hard for SB to choose a voice room for the pilot, as it would depend on the servers available and the geographic location.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dweese
Joined: 02 Nov 2002
Posts: 1720
Location: Belleville ON Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | IMHO it would be extremely hard for SB to choose a voice room for the pilot, as it would depend on the servers available and the geographic location. |
You hit the nail on the head with that one, there was a big post on this in the main Vatsim forum few weeks back.
Geographic location is the biggest issue here because you never know what server to use, and the second one is not everyone can use voice.
So I can't see this ever happening, unless SB5 is going to have a text to voice convertor in it. 
Up until about a year ago text was still the preferred method of communication on Vatsim, with voice being an option. They have now reword that saying voice is the preferred method of communication, however because not everyone can use voice, you still have to know how to communicate and control via text. But I think that was changed to work some training issues, because no matter what you still have to be able to communicate via text online, voice is the option. And a controller can not turn you away if your not on voice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
erik
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
In the USA you can logon to a privat room on the liveATC server with the code of the airspace you are flying:
Los Angeles = server/unicom_KZLA
Seattle = server/unicom_KZSE
..........
Not many users are doing this. Why not?
Erik |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mwheeler
Joined: 04 Mar 2007
Posts: 384
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Please no voice Unicom.
I know at one point this feature was available and it was riduculous. It basically became an on-line chat room and those that did use it properly to announce their intentions over did it. It was almost to the point where they would announce that they were about to fart in the cockpit, etc.
In any case, I beleive this feature would be a Vatsim feature and not an Squawkbox feature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joel
Site Admin
Joined: 04 Aug 2002
Posts: 1895
Location: British Columbia, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This has been a weakness of voice on VATSIM for quite some time. I have advocated a robust solution for a while, but it is definitely not a simple matter to fix. I believe a more robust solution for voice will be done eventually, but I am not directly involved in those efforts at the moment.
Joel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dweese
Joined: 02 Nov 2002
Posts: 1720
Location: Belleville ON Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm with Marc, no unicom voice, besides I do know of a few pilots that are deaf, by dumping text in support of voice unicom would shut them out of uncontrolled airspace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yiso
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guys ,its a great idea , FSINN is already applying it , why dont SB do it also 
My best regards ,,, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Norman
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 1583
Location: N Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Even if SB also did voice unicom it would be a client bandaid; those pilots using XSB, SB2.2 or those who cannot use voice would still be unable to participate.
Until the software devs can come up with a plan workable across all scenarios then the way SB has it is the correct way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dweese
Joined: 02 Nov 2002
Posts: 1720
Location: Belleville ON Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Guys ,its a great idea , FSINN is already applying it , why dont SB do it also
My best regards ,,, |
I don't think FSInn is applying they may have built an option that will support voice on the unicom freq, but its got to be supported by Vatsim before you will actually be able to use it full time. I know lots of people host unicom voice channels but you still have to send your text message as well, because Unicom as per Vatsim rules is text based.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
afford1
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Me too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mwheeler
Joined: 04 Mar 2007
Posts: 384
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was flying in the Yukon last week and was on Unicom and another pilot was landing at the same airport and said all future communications would be voice only. (He was using FS-Inn)
I advised him that I did not have Unicom voice and that he should text his intentions.
I think Vatsim needs to make this policy clear as some pilots are not even aware that not everyone has Unicom voice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
