Atc frequencies

[klisura]

I'm trying the new V2, great job but I really miss the best feature that is present in v1. 

I'm talking about the Atc frequencies ribbon on the top.

I'm an ivao flyier and I really love that. Knowing all the frequencies you'll have to switch during the flight is the feature I love the most and hovering with mouse gave you the atis, active rwy and info. Now you have to open a window and it's not the same especially for who, like me, that uses EFB on a second pc, because I have to act too many times with the other keyboard and mouse. Maybe an undockable window could help if the old way to show frequencies can't go back.

Does the developers team think some changes will come in this direction? 

 

Thanks for your support and attention

[lonewulf47]

43 minutes ago, klisura said:

I'm trying the new V2, great job but I really miss the best feature that is present in v1. 

I'm talking about the Atc frequencies ribbon on the top.

I'm an ivao flyier and I really love that. Knowing all the frequencies you'll have to switch during the flight is the feature I love the most and hovering with mouse gave you the atis, active rwy and info. Now you have to open a window and it's not the same especially for who, like me, that uses EFB on a second pc, because I have to act too many times with the other keyboard and mouse. Maybe an undockable window could help if the old way to show frequencies can't go back.

Does the developers team think some changes will come in this direction? 

 

Thanks for your support and attention

Just to make life easier with more than one PC: Try this, I'm using it for years: http://inputdirector.com/

And for your comment: EFB v2 uses windows inorder to gain space for what it is designed: to show maps and ground layouts instead of using precious space for other things. So you see, everyone has its own preferences...?

[klisura]

31 minutes ago, lonewulf47 said:

Just to make life easier with more than one PC: Try this, I'm using it for years: http://inputdirector.com/

And for your comment: EFB v2 uses windows inorder to gain space for what it is designed: to show maps and ground layouts instead of using precious space for other things. So you see, everyone has its own preferences...?

 

I didn't know that app, thank you very much!

About v2, yep everyone has his own preferencies. I only asked if an update could bring back something present in v1 and now no more... 

[aivlasoft]

6 hours ago, klisura said:

I only asked if an update could bring back something present in v1 and now no more... 

It is not 'no more available' it's just in another way, let's say is vertically and no longer horizontally.

When you fly online, the radio panel lists all available frequencies in ascending order to their distance from your aircraft's position (not according to the active airport!). On top you always find the UNICOM frequency, while below all other currently 'reachable' frequencies are listed. It makes no sense to list frequencies which cannot be tuned. While you fly along your route, this list is updated regularly so you should see the next frequency. However it depends on the so called 'visual distance' which is set by the respective ATC controller.

 

Compared to the 'old frequency ribbon', the new radio panel shows more or less the same information while giving you more flexibility when it comes to an unexpected frequency change. Sometimes ATC controllers can request you to switch to other frequencies than the old frequency ribbon was offering to you.

 

BTW, a small improvement, mainly the kind of depiction of the ATC facilities will come with next update.

 

 

[bob34]

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

 

[KiloJuliett]

Bob, you are bringing up quite a few topics together. Allow me to go through them point by point.

 

But first, let me clarify that I fly online as well. However, the need to see continuously the frequencies is not a need I have. I like it to have a window I can open when I need to check what the next frequencies could be. And I like it even more to read the ATIS that way as the text stays until I select a new station. The hover solution from v1 really isn't my preference. When you display additionally the active ATC positions on your world map, you get a very good overview of what positions and services you can expect. And there is some improvement planned even there. So Urs does certainly consider the online pilots and is investing a lot of time despite the small user group.

I can't understand what the issue should be for the SID/STAR restrictions. They are available in v2 as well, you just have not selected the same procedures in your screenshot. This makes it a bit difficult, if not unfair, to compare.

The display of traffic depends on your FSUIPC settings and the filter options in EFB. If you set them according your wishes, you will also see the same traffic as in v1. Be aware that you need a licenced version of FSUIPC to disable the distance limiter there. But both these aspects have already been discussed in other topics here. If you need specific help, please advise and report your exact nature of the problem.

 

This forum is certainly the best place to discuss as others users can participate as well. But don't be disappointed if the developer doesn't meet each of your desires. There are other users with different preferences which might not meet yours. A generalisation of your opinions for an entire group ("us online guys") should be made with caution.

[bob34]

Jonas - a couple of counter points.

1 hour ago, Mr. ATC said:

However, the need to see continuously the frequencies is not a need I have.

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.

 

1 hour ago, Mr. ATC said:

I can't understand what the issue should be for the SID/STAR restrictions.

 

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.

 

1 hour ago, Mr. ATC said:

The hover solution from v1 really isn't my preference

 

Because listening to the ATIS or popping open an additional window is better?

 

1 hour ago, Mr. ATC said:

This forum is certainly the best place to discuss as others users can participate as well. But don't be disappointed if the developer doesn't meet each of your desires.

 

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.

 

[KiloJuliett]

Bob, I guess we will never agree on certain points. This is just because we have different routines on how we fly and plan. Some are better supported by EFB, some less.

 

During events, the question I find difficult to answer is which of the GNDs/APPs/CTRs will I need to contact next? And to find out, I think the only reliable method is to listen to the frequency and find out who is in front of you (the guy that gets similiar clearance, just earlier) and expect you will need to do the same. I've always a piece of paper and a pen available, in case I need to write something down. This could be a frequency. And I also usually set my frequencies in the aircraft (in the sim). Although the functionality of EFB is nice, I still like to virtually turn those nobs.

 

Regarding SIDs/STARs, I've to admit that I'm not familiar with the FAA approach. I've always learned to not include procedures in the flight plan (because you may use another one when you do this flight next time), but there are even in Europe different preferences (issued by the respective aviation authorities). I don't know for sure what EFB2 is estimate to cope with. It might be worth to open a specific topic to clarify this issue and check if any improvement can be done.

 

Also your specific issue observed on the KSEA STARs is certainly worth a separate topic to tackle it properly. I can already tell that I have the same behaviour. There seems to be an issue with those procedures.

 

And about the hover function:

4 hours ago, bob34 said:

Because listening to the ATIS or popping open an additional window is better?

Ever tried to hover on a touch screen? That's horrible. For touch devices, EFB2 is quite an improvement, I can tell you.

 

4 hours ago, bob34 said:

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.

It's just a click away in the Weather tab including the calculated components for cross and tail/headwind. This is helpful for the assessment of the runway to be used, isn't it?

 

We certainly do accept critical comments here. Having done beta tests for this product, the beta testers are probably the most critial users. We probably have a little bit more insight on the ideas behind certain functionalities of EFB2 and were participating in some long discussions to find out the solution we currently have is the best one. On topics we had those discussions already, we probably tend to take quite a contra position. But we take all inputs seriously and try to provide a solution to support the key need. The solution however might look different from what you expected. And this is due to the probably most common missunderstanding about EFB2, that it isn't simple continuoued development of EFB1.

A quote from the Manual 1 Installation:

Quote

EFB V2 is a completely new development and has - except for the basic idea - nothing in common with EFB v1.

 

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.

 

So, there are at least 2 topics you reported, Bob, which need further investigation. I invite you to open separate topics as already mentioned above. Then I'm confident we will find an appropriate solution.

[bob34]

4 hours ago, Mr. ATC said:

Quote

EFB V2 is a completely new development and has - except for the basic idea - nothing in common with EFB v1.

 

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.

[benjoglove]

On 8/13/2018 at 6:38 AM, bob34 said:

 

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.

Agree mate. I stopped coming back until now when I saw your post in a face book post. I recall the previous topic stated that online users are a low %...incorrect. Just need to look at vatsim etc online numbers to see that it is a incorrect statement. This isn't the first time this issue re atc has come up for the new version either. I do recall I posted similar and a few others. If nothing is going to be looked at then users go elsewhere.

[KiloJuliett]

17 minutes ago, benjoglove said:

I recall the previous topic stated that online users are a low %...incorrect. Just need to look at vatsim etc online numbers to see that it is a incorrect statement.

We would love to have confirmed numbers about the percentage of online pilots using EFB. Unfortunately we haven't. And looking at online numbers of VATSIM doesn't give any hint about the number of people not using VATSIM, could be few, can be many. If you have statistics available, let us know.

And believe me, as an online pilot on VATSIM myself, I'm the last one to put a stone in the way for an improvement of the online functionalities. But I'm not just fixed on "bring the old solution back", but to share the needs to be fulfilled and stay open for any possible solution satisfying these needs. As I alread said earlier:

On 8/12/2018 at 8:41 PM, Mr. ATC said:

But we take all inputs seriously and try to provide a solution to support the key need. The solution however might look different from what you expected.

 

This spirit, to look always for even better solutions, is one of the key factors for the success of EFB. If Urs would always be satisfied with the first solution he designs, you wouldn't have all the advanced features of EFB2 you currently have. And he keeps working on it ...

[benjoglove]

55 minutes ago, Mr. ATC said:

We would love to have confirmed numbers about the percentage of online pilots using EFB. Unfortunately we haven't. And looking at online numbers of VATSIM doesn't give any hint about the number of people not using VATSIM, could be few, can be many. If you have statistics available, let us know.

And believe me, as an online pilot on VATSIM myself, I'm the last one to put a stone in the way for an improvement of the online functionalities. But I'm not just fixed on "bring the old solution back", but to share the needs to be fulfilled and stay open for any possible solution satisfying these needs. As I alread said earlier:

 

This spirit, to look always for even better solutions, is one of the key factors for the success of EFB. If Urs would always be satisfied with the first solution he designs, you wouldn't have all the advanced features of EFB2 you currently have. And he keeps working on it ...

Agree with what your saying, unfortunately the way the developer ended his last post then closed it doesn't hold us much hope. I think when the same themed post keeps getting brought up by different people you need to change your opinion as a developer. After all if customers are asking to bring back an option in a early development isn't that a good thing? Means you got it right the first time and we like the product for what it had and build on it. Having numerous windows isn't obviously cutting it as you can see in all the same posts. Im an avid fan of EFB, hell even put many friends onto it, but V2 just doesnt do it for me and obviously others. All my opinion of course and accept that but after a while when you see the same thing come up hopefully something shifts.

[KiloJuliett]

2 hours ago, benjoglove said:

I think when the same themed post keeps getting brought up by different people you need to change your opinion as a developer.

If you would always do what a few people want you to do, you never would release a product like EFB. It's a balance between a concept you base the software on and inputs from the users. But you can't throw over everything just because of a few votes. On the one side, users use software quite differently, hence the expectations of how a functionality should be differ quite a lot. On the other side, users tend to forget that the software is not only designed for them, but also a bunch of other users with again different wishes. E.g. the radio panel is designed to also be used while not flying online. The needs are different in this case, hence a change has to be evaluated to not interfere with these needs.

 

3 hours ago, benjoglove said:

After all if customers are asking to bring back an option in a early development isn't that a good thing? Means you got it right the first time and we like the product for what it had and build on it. Having numerous windows isn't obviously cutting it as you can see in all the same posts.

It's definitely a good thing, it's like late compliments for v1. But the development is already in a mature state (otherwise, the product wouldn't have been released), decisions about concepts have been taken and cannot be changed. The challenge is now to find a solution what suits the concept of EFB2 and even tops the solution of v1. The solution of v1 also had it's weaknesses like cluttering the map, limited support for touch devices, algorithm to display the "right" stations, ... . It's not easy for sure, but if Urs managed it for v1, I'm very confident he will find an even better solution for v2. You just can't think of it by now.

The way you can help is to describe precisely when you need what information to which extend. Just stating "we want this part of v1 back" doesn't help at all, particularly because v2 is a complete new development and also has code-wise nothing to do with v1. So if you miss some information you have in v1, try to describe when you need this information, what digits/letters you are exactly looking for, how often and in which flight phases you look for this information. Your constructive contributions are very welcome!

[lonewulf47]

4 hours ago, benjoglove said:

Agree with what your saying, unfortunately the way the developer ended his last post then closed it doesn't hold us much hope. I think when the same themed post keeps getting brought up by different people you need to change your opinion as a developer. After all if customers are asking to bring back an option in a early development isn't that a good thing? Means you got it right the first time and we like the product for what it had and build on it. Having numerous windows isn't obviously cutting it as you can see in all the same posts. Im an avid fan of EFB, hell even put many friends onto it, but V2 just doesnt do it for me and obviously others. All my opinion of course and accept that but after a while when you see the same thing come up hopefully something shifts.

Ben,

 

while I keep out of this discussion as everything concerning Online Flying is outside my area of interest and is well handled by Urs an Jonas, I would ike to point to two things that I do not like on your post at all:

 

- mentioning EFB v2 as being "in a early development" is a bit far off and is in fact not even worth being commented, were it not close to an insult to all concerned in developing EFB v2

 

- your comment on "the same comment keeps getting brought up by different people" is of course a valid point from your view. However you should also allow the developer to have his own view on the importance of such comments and proposals. AivlaSoft does in no way ingore those, but you should also be aware of the fact that "a few" or "different people" does not conclude a statement of importance. Given the fact that the number of those "complaints" are far, far, far - and again - far below the 1% mark compared to the number of licensed installations, you will certainly agree that the delevoper is allowed to draw his own conclusions on that fact.

 

Nevertheless - as also Jonas stated above, it is not the intention of AivlaSoft to simply ignore any proposals, but going back to a previous system is just not an option. This kind of decision should - that's at least my opinion - still lie within the developers authority...

[bob34]

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.

 

 

2 hours ago, Mr. ATC said:

The way you can help is to describe precisely when you need what information to which extend. Just stating "we want this part of v1 back" doesn't help at all, particularly because v2 is a complete new development and also has code-wise nothing to do with v1. So if you miss some information you have in v1, try to describe when you need this information, what digits/letters you are exactly looking for, how often and in which flight phases you look for this information. Your constructive contributions are very welcome!

 

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.

[bobsk8]

2 hours ago, bob34 said:

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.

 

If you don't like V2, why not just use V1? This get's really old.....

[bob34]

9 minutes ago, bobsk8 said:

 

If you don't like V2, why not just use V1? This get's really old.....

 

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

[bobsk8]

2 minutes ago, bob34 said:

 

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

Cause ranting just keeps popping up, with the same thing over and over.

[bob34]

5 minutes ago, bobsk8 said:

Cause ranting just keeps popping up, with the same thing over and over.

 

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. 

 

[bobsk8]

27 minutes ago, bob34 said:

 

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. 

 

I am sure they will be heart broken if you decide not to purchase V2...  

[bob34]

40 minutes ago, bobsk8 said:

I am sure they will be heart broken if you decide not to purchase V2...  

 

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... 

[benjoglove]

8 hours ago, lonewulf47 said:

Ben,

 

while I keep out of this discussion as everything concerning Online Flying is outside my area of interest and is well handled by Urs an Jonas, I would ike to point to two things that I do not like on your post at all:

 

- mentioning EFB v2 as being "in a early development" is a bit far off and is in fact not even worth being commented, were it not close to an insult to all concerned in developing EFB v2

 

- your comment on "the same comment keeps getting brought up by different people" is of course a valid point from your view. However you should also allow the developer to have his own view on the importance of such comments and proposals. AivlaSoft does in no way ingore those, but you should also be aware of the fact that "a few" or "different people" does not conclude a statement of importance. Given the fact that the number of those "complaints" are far, far, far - and again - far below the 1% mark compared to the number of licensed installations, you will certainly agree that the delevoper is allowed to draw his own conclusions on that fact.

 

Nevertheless - as also Jonas stated above, it is not the intention of AivlaSoft to simply ignore any proposals, but going back to a previous system is just not an option. This kind of decision should - that's at least my opinion - still lie within the developers authority...

Lonewulf47 think you read my post wrong in regards to early development. Read it again it was talking about v1 which IS an earlier development of the program.

[benjoglove]

3 hours ago, bobsk8 said:

 

If you don't like V2, why not just use V1? This get's really old.....

Maybe because v1 is no longer supported and will no doubt be outphased!

[bob34]

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.

[aivlasoft]

Bob,

what you have posted (left screenshot of version 2) is a bug which I have already fixed. EFB v2 obviously does not yet recognize the callsigns using an 'alias'. With next update (coming soon) this is fixed and you will see all stations around your aircraft, in ascending order to the their distance.