Andrew Heath

Yup we are still here, just have our heads in a bunch of code focussing on a quality product right now. Updates will come fairly soon, just not yet ?

@Patrick Eventually, yes, but it is not going to be supported initially.

Supported sims: FSX, P3D, and X-Plane 11. FS9 may work, but I am not sure to be honest. Time to upgrade your sims boys!

@Michael Abhinaya

@Adam Markus

@Timothy Barker Yes, this will be implemented (if not already). However, if you don't mind, please PM me all the specifics with references (to real world documentation). I will then add all the specifics to our issue tracker to ensure completion.

Yes. We have the benefit of having Mark Ellis, from X-Camera, on our team. You can expect very cool things in the X-Plane tower view.

A lot has been going on. We had a major staffing change, and as a result, we reworked the server quite a bit. We took a few steps backwards in order to do this, but it will benefit us in the long term. Here is the newest server in action: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/310927201?t=15h30m43s We are expected to go back into testing pretty soon. The public beta is still on schedule for the end of this year, beginning of the next. Those people who are members of this forum will have access to the public beta when released.

@Reina Kousaka So you misunderstand the idea of "club" a bit on here. We are using the "club" feature of this forum to promote sub-communities that will be featuring ATC. The Military Division was created because the Military Division will be responsible for some significant air traffic control services on POSCON. Hope that makes sense? We definitely will be encouraging your GA activity though and anything we can do from a technological standpoint, by all means, feel free to request a feature!

@Ct Ng Yes, we have thought about it and will be attempting to add this as AI.

All sub communities will be on the POSCON infrastructure.

@Richard McDonald Woods But the problem is a "virtual ground school" can get really lost in the weeds. There is definitely a lot of information a virtual pilot does NOT need to know to be successful online. We have no intention of fully training pilots, that is for 3rd parties to do, not POSCON. Our goal is to have a successful simulation, which means pilots comply with ATC commands and ATC provide efficient and effect separation services.

This will be controlled at a network level. I will be the first to admit that local policies on VATSIM are a bit out of control, but in my opinion they have developed this way because there is no standardization at the higher levels.

Yes, we are supporting it and making it easy to set up.

I am not a developer, but I will say that I don't foresee us putting in much effort into this until down the road. We need to first establish a market presence and then develop a standard that scenery developers can follow. One thing that would be neat though is if we could support Runway Status Lights. This would actually require no ATC control, and would run automatically. We are investigating the feasibility of implementing this.

I agree with @aeroniemi We are really putting a lot of effort into designing out AI drones though, so that should make up for your occasional "drop off".

I spoke at length with Damian at length at FSExpo 2018 and some great ideas were generated during that conversation. We are definitely focusing a considerable amount of time and money to developing out better sources of weather for POSCON.

@Greg Swagler In order for your idea to work, I personally would want a PMDG AI model package to be free. The reason: PMDG does not have enough models to create a comprehensive package. What COULD be a good idea is to package all the study level aircraft models into one large payware package, but that would require an incredible amount of consensus and agreement among developers. Not sure any of them ever agreed on so much before.

@Greg Swagler @Russell Tucker We hope to see you online in the very near future!

How does one determine that in an objective way? I have been controlling on VATSIM a long time and most of my time has been spent controlling in troll central... New York... so admittedly I am bias. As a result of my experiences, what I can say with a certain fact is that the percentage of emergency occurrences in the online environment is much higher than in the real world. The main reason for this is pilot error... i.e. "my autopilot failed" when in fact the user just failed to know how to operate it correctly, or "we are stalling" because the user tried to climb too high, too early in their flight. Ultimately we are trying to simulate a realistic environment, and when emergencies are being declared at a much higher rate than the real world, then we are failing to simulate the real world correctly. What I can promise is that we will use stastical analysis of the number of emergencies declared over the first year and, if those numbers do not match the occurrence rate in the real world, then we will change our policy. But for now, I am not sure anyone can convince me that having a policy other than VATSIMs is a good idea.

@Jonas Kuster While the idea of instant replays is great, it is highly unrealistic thus we cannot in good conscience implement it. We will have a way of replaying voice and radar history, but it won't be instantly available to everyone. As to your second point, yes there will be realistic landlines simulated.

The capability will be there to conduct these approaches, yes.

Ratings will transfer for 6-12 months after open beta release. If you haven't successfully transferred them by then, then you will have to start training over again.

@Tien Chien An