bob34

for what it's worth to the conversation, vpilot has added the .ctaf <airport> command from the chat window. Not as good as it would be in the ATC ribbon, but at least we don't have to go bumbling around for charts.

I'm thinking about the never-ending cost of Foreflight and migrating back into EFB2, but finding it hard to give up my continuous logbook I've had for years. Have you put any consideration into having an acars style (from/to/aircraft/on/off hours/landing rate) logbook integrated into the app? Just curious. BD

I'll second that. With xPilot software no traffic is showing up on the map even though I can physically see the traffic all around me. In traffic monitor it shows three aircraft very far away with "ground" status but over 10,000 ft. XPUIPC is set for 50 aircraft @ 40nm Client is set for +/- 20,000 ft

I'm using registered FSUIPC. The two examples above were running at the same time. Good to know. Thank you. I know I dragged everyone through this last year when v2 was released, but I still feel the same way. EFB v1 is the single most useful tool for situational awareness and organization in busy VATSIM events. Having those frequencies laid out in order across the top was gold. Especially when a center or approach has multiple frequencies. Watching the traffic flow helps anticipate the commands that will be issued. Especially the traffic tags on v1 as they are smaller and more crisp. Very useful when the sector is loaded with traffic. I'm not sure what the distance fix is going to be... but thanks for the info on the data tags. Hopefully v2 will get some of the v1 features back.

I'm at a loss why vatsim traffic only shows up in v2 when you're ~ 35 miles while v1 I'm looking 80+ miles away. Also - the data tag on v1 has the Flight#, the destination, altitude and aircraft type. In v2 it's just the flight # (in P3D, AC01 in XP) and altitude. The airplane symbol and data tags are so much cleaner on v1 as well. And I'm really missing the radio frequency bar across the top. Any re-consideration to put that back vs the pop-up window that's always in the way? I know you said previously that online pilots are a minority but it's been over a year now and I still can't find an advantage to v2 over v1. It will be a sad day when v1 stops working with P3D unless some of the better features are incorporated into v2.

Great news. Look forward to seeing it.

Thanks Urs. That will be better. I hope you and your team can discuss options for snapping that window into a ribbon bar or something similar. The flow from left-to-right across the top of the To/From airports and everything in between is amazingly intuitive and simple and a huge time saver during busy events. Piloting an airliner solo and being able to see the upcoming frequences - and click-and-tune quickly is a big deal. EFB has made me an excellent online pilot and frankly I hardly used x-plane solely because I depend on EFB for so many small tasks. The v2 server/database management is excellent. I wish the v1 client would connect to it so we don't lose future support.

I was starting to give up on this topic until I gave v2 one last try before tonight's VATSIM FNO and I'm just beside myself. v2 on the left v1 on the right. The ribbon bar across the top has everyone who's online right now. I can see the 3 different SLC centers I may be assigned. I can get the ATIS with a mouse hover. I have the Approach tower and ground frequencies right in front of me. I have the KMSP->Departure->Ernoute->Arrival->Approach-KSLC bar on the top for very fast access to the airports and procedures I have loaded. C'mon. How would you expect anyone to say the one on the left is better and how could you expect going from v1 to v2 and losing this to be a good thing? There isn't even an argument. If you're not doing this type of app anymore - then I don't get what you're doing.

I already have v2 ... and if I didn't, they should be heartbroken. Any smart business owner and employees should take it personally if their hard work isn't' well received and listening to "why" is critical for staying in business. If you can't grasp that, then I can't help you participate bobbio...

No one is ranting bobsk8. What you are (presumably) reading is feedback from loyal and paying customers to the developer. I've been using their program for many years and been a passionate advocate of their product in the communities .. which resulted in many sales for them. v2 is a different story and I can't think of any reason why I shouldn't say so in very clear terms and also push for Aivlasoft's response to that feedback. We're trying to get past the "we value your feedback" and feel them out if we see eye to eye on how the product is being received and where the product is headed. Before I write the program off as a waste of money for me, it's important they know why and who else is saying so... and more important if they will - or will not - address it. The conversation is healthy even if I'm not happy on where it's going. It might seem repetitive but so far for every point made, there's been counterpoints. That's how things work. If it makes you squirmy and uncomfortable... either contribute to the debate or kindly move along.

If you don't like the topic, why do you keep jumping in? This gets really old.

Oskar: Calling it "Early development" isn't meant as an insult. v1 is on v1.6 and v2 is on 2.07. That's pretty early. We are here fishing around for clues if Aivlasoft has any intention of re-incorporating some of the features that made v1 legendary that disappeared, became inconvenient to use, or is functionally inferior to v1. Jonas. You know my feedback and it's been met with "why do you need this" or "this isn't v1". So I don't care to type it all out again. If Aivlasoft wants my honest feedback, they can get in touch with me and I'll be glad to break it down in detail. If not, then I'd suggest you guys get out in the community and listen as local forums eventually become fan clubs. Get a youtube channel and a facebook and Reddit feed, filter the trolls, and see what people have to say. I see quite a few people who are loving it at first and saying this is awesome and then a short time later return disappointed or frustrated. I hope you're seeing this too. I don't know what else to add to the subject other than I've gone from a BIG advocate of EFB in the VATSIM community to a warning siren against v2 since I've seen so much disappointment after upgrading. I work with developers all week long and calling their baby ugly never goes over well. But if I don't say it bluntly - our customers will. In my experience, packing in more features means nothing if the customer can't get to them quickly and the product isn't pleasing to the eye. Disappointingly for me, v2 has gone backwards in those areas.

This is a crucial fact to understand when attempting to compare v1 and v2. This is especially said to anyone commenting like "v1 was better than v2" outside of this forum. Those votes won't be taken into consideration for updates of v2. People having specific needs (remember to describe the needs, not the solution) are encouraged to report those needs in this forum. That's a very disappointing statement because Aivlasoft has dropped support for v1 and it's only a matter of time Lockheed makes an update that renders EFB v1 useless. Sounds like the window is open for other developers to fill the space EFB v1 used to fill. Urs and v2 appear to be off in a different direction that eliminates the key features that made EFB stand out from Navigraph, Jeppessen, littlenavmap and all the other moving-map projects out there. At least it's clear and I can stop checking back every few weeks to see if there's been a change of heart.

Jonas - a couple of counter points. During a very busy event - the v1 map gives me the traffic with flight numbers (in a very clean crisp font) and frequencies - in order - along the top of the map with the ability to tune with a right click and left click. When ATC starts assigning frequency changes, it's good to see where the aircraft is and put my eyes on the frequency so I know which one is coming up next. To me, it's cleaner then having to click a button to bring up a window. Of course the ribbon bar "isn't needed", but it's smart to use it if you want to stay ahead of ATC and be prepared. In this picture - in V1, I copy pasted my route into the FPL and it didn't ignore the STAR. It loaded it. In V2, it ignored the STAR. It's a lot of extra steps to get it loaded in the map. I was referring to the general speed and flow of setting up a flight in V1 vs v2. This isn't the biggest deal to me because v1 often got the runway direction wrong (almost all the time), but there was potential to fix that rather than eliminate it. Because listening to the ATIS or popping open an additional window is better? That's never been my expectation but I also know hobby development teams are small and sometimes have a narrow view of how their products are used or what the community thinks of them. Support forums often become fan clubs and people don't want to be attacked by the lurkers and fans for leaving critical comments. The critical feedback ends up in less regulated places like Reddit or private Facebook groups. The comments I've seen outside the forum follow the same theme of font and map clarity - especially on traffic, the frequency bar, the SID/STAR preview is missed - a lot - and the flightplan setup. Some comments how people can't figure out to get the flightplan automatically loaded into the sim like V1 did (which also loaded up Activesky automatically since it detects a FSX/P3D flight plan being loaded. The bar with the departure airport, departure, enroute, arrival, approach and destination airport gave quick previews of each phase. Also when selecting STARS (which aren't all available for some reason), the wind of the destination airport was there which helped select the runway. This takes much more time to find now. All comments I agree with and have seen multiple times by frustrated v2 users. Airspace awareness, traffic awareness, and frequency awareness is gold. I hope to see V2 as useful in the future, but right now V1 still does the job (in those areas) better. The reason I'm back on the topic again is because I'm passionate about this particular product. V1 literally made me a better online pilot and keeps me on top of (or ahead of) the ATC call. This is why I've evangelized V1 every chance I get since I discovered it years ago. The only reason I don't fly XP more is because flying online just sucks without EFB. I know this community well and change/acceptance is a slow process, but I tend to agree with many people that v1 is still a superior product to v2 for VATSIM pilots. By the way: Below is a challenge I'm having right now setting up a simple route: KGEG TEMPL GLASR1 KSEA No issue in V1 on the right ... but in V2 there's only 1 star available even though the GLASR1 approach is valid for rwy 16C. Trying to import the route, it thinks GLASR1 might be the SID for KGEG rather than the STAR for KSEA which makes no sense since there's a departing waypoint. Not saying V2 should be bug free, but I wonder how others are using this program because the simplest tasks are such a challenge.

Here we go again Urs, but the frequency ribbon along the top of v1 was an absolute gem functionally and visually for us VATSIM flyers, especially during busy events with multiple frequencies in the same airspace. Screen real-estate in an additional window isn't gaining anything - it's just one more window that slips into the background or you have to go fishing for. You got it right in v1. Setup time for a flight including SID/STAR was seconds - the STARS and altitude/speed restrictions are much easier to read and the interface just flows. v2 is a step backwards in functionality, convenience and clarity for me ... but you mentioned online pilots are a low % of your user base which isn't a good sign that v2 will be a better product than v1 for me. The traffic in v1 is easy to see ... I don't even see it in V2 until it's much closer. The SID/STAR is picked up from the paste into the FP. V2 ignores it. If this isn't the place to discuss .... let me know the best way to get you this feedback... I'll be glad to write something up in a PM or Word doc. If you don't want the feedback then I'll stop here... All the way back to the OP point - the frequency ribbon is sorely missed along with the right-click tune com1 and mouse-hover over the ATIS. Just having that back would help us online guys a lot. Bob Donovan