XSquawkBox.net

[112088]

Can any one please tell me what the differences between VATSIM and IVAO are? Why would one chose one vs the other?

For starters, I know that VATSIM supports a different kind of audio for communications.

This is NOT intended to start a flame war, but rather a discussion about the two different network flight sim services (mainly for my education).

Cheers,
_________________

http://www.californiaair.net/index.shtml

[bsupnik]

Hi,

Well, first there was SATCO (Simulated air traffic control or something, probably meant to pun on the former US ATC union PATCO). IVAO then formed primarily based in Europe. I don't know the details of IVAO forming but my understanding is that there were disputes between IVAO and PATCO management.

Recently PATCO reformed into VATSIM surrounding a change in leadership and reaffirmation of VATSIM's non-proffit principles, but the infrastructure (Servers, tech folks, users, ARTCCs) pretty much all migrated.

At some point a network called NVAS showed up, but I do not know if they are operational. Occaisionally I get emails from them, it is unclear to me how they define themselves as different frmo the above.

Finally, FPI (flight project international) recently formed, started by former IVAO developers I think, apparently also due to some kind of management dispute.

Technology wise all three are using stuff based on the original SATCO software (FSD, SquawkBox, ProController), but the networks are customizing in their own directions. So far no customization has stopped XSquawkBox from running on a network, but who knows what the future holds.

In terms of technology, VATSIM has ASRC, a next-gen ATC client (features include scopes that look just like US ARTS and DSR scopes, aircraft tracking, and new voice features) as well as new voice technologies. I believe FPI is also working on new technology. I think IVAO is starting a technology initiative of some kind but I do not know its status.

The single biggest difference between IVAO and VATSIM is traffic-levels; VATSIM has more US ops and IVAO has more European ops.

I've heard people say that VATSIM is more 'serious' and IVAO is more 'beginner friendly' but I'm not sure how true this is. There appears to be so much variation in training and seriousness levels within VATSIM that it's hard to generalize.

I would say watch the monitors on both for a while and see where the traffic is on each, decide what programs you want to use and fly on one. Or better yet, fly on both! There's nothing stopping you from having IDs on as many networks as you want.

Finally, my personal biases: I am a senior controller in virtual Boston on VATSIM and a codeveloper of VATSIM's new voice technology, as well as friends with the author of ASRC, so from a personal perspective, I do all my flying on VATSIM. But a large number of x-plane users want to fly on IVAO, so I am making sure that this will work too.

I appreciate the support that all XSquawkBox users and potential users, both IVAO and VATSIM, have given me in terms of feedback, bug reports, and (way back in the day) encouraging Austin to support this project. (Before you send him email...Austin has been 110% supportive and there is no need to ask him to support XSB now, he's on board.

*Cheers*
Ben

[Seb]

I 've just had a look on the flight project web site. It sounds that they are developping their own client to replace squawkbox ([url] http://www.flightproject.net/software/download/index.html[/url]). This might not be good for us !

Anyway, I can understand that in any group there might be some political divergences. But splitting the networks like that, at a point to have 3 runnings and from what you said Ben, may be a number 4 comming... It's not realistic for now. When the number of online flight simmer and virtual controllers increases (and it will probably over time), why not to have several networks. This probably help each of them to make all possible effort in offering the best service. At present anyway, I have the feeling that 1 service should be sufficient (to really enjoy bussy airports as in real, large areas controlled over the earth, ...), may be 2 are OK. Not more. That was my point of view...
_________________
IVAORW (IVAO TeamSpeak voice) plugin available at: http://www.niscats.com/redirect.php?Page=downloads-xplane-plugins-ivaorw.

[Seb]

Opps, sorry, the url to the download area of the "flightproject" is (http://www.flightproject.net/software/download/index.html). you find here:

[bsupnik]

Hi Sebastian,

I received an email from one of the guys in FPI management that said that XSquawkBox would work on their network. I emailed them to see if they wanted to have one of their network heads beta test (IVAO and VATSIM have folks in this beta program) but have not heard back from them.

I agree that lots of networks splits up a virtual aviation community that would benefit from increased density, but at this point I'm not prepared to make XSB work on some networks but not others...which would I choose.

I think if virtual aviation users want unity, they need to encourage the folks who run their networks to cooperate. I don't know if this ever will happen in practice. I suspect that having two networks is necessary to keep from getting one big complacent network that doesn't need to update technology, but having four seems unviable. Just my 0.02.

*Cheers*
Ben

[Joerg Stenger]

Hi there,

I just dropped by this forum an read this thread. Ben, sorry, I checked my outbox and apperently my answer wasn't sent for whatever reason.

I'll get in touch with you again in the course of the week.

For all others, as long as XSB uses the "standard" FSD protocols, it will work on FPI for a while since our new completely from scratch written servers will have a module for that. The only problem right now is that you would need to tune our voice client manually, since we don't use RW anymore but our own system and that is - contrary to what I've read from Vatsim's AVC - not compatible with RW.

Right now, our developers are busy bringing up our FS pilot client from alpha to beta state (together with the servers). Generally it's the policy of FPI to provide "hooks" for as many clients as possible, but as we all do this in our spare time, we have limited recources and we have to set priorities. XPlane sure will come on FPI, maybe even with "native" support like in FS2k2/2k4, but right now, I have no idea of a time frame.

Until our developers start dealing with XPlane, you should be able to use the XSB on FPI, you just won't get the "goodies" that FS pilots with our client have.

Jörg
PS: concerning the technolgoy, FPI already has a next-gen radar client based on the european P1 system, self developed voice client and - as indicated above, we are working on a pilot client for FS2k2/2k4 and non FSD based servers right now.
_________________
--
FlightProject International (FPI)
Joerg Stenger
FPI PR Admin / Training Admin
http://www.flightproject.net

[bsupnik]

[Joerg Stenger]

Hi Ben,

you have mail

Best regards,
Jörg
_________________
--
FlightProject International (FPI)
Joerg Stenger
FPI PR Admin / Training Admin
http://www.flightproject.net

[Kenny]

I can confirm to you guys that IVAO is working on new software too. Just check www.ivao.org/softdev/ for details and screenshots
_________________
Kenny Moens
IVAO Software Development Team