> I'm not sbolutely sure but I believe different countries have different > UNICOM frequencies. Germany uses 123,45, as far as I remember we used > different frequency on a trip to Denmark ....
That's why it would have to be multiple virtual ATC posts. The distance checking we would have to do anyway would make sure that only those pilots can talk to each other who are in radio range from each other. AFAIK, the USA has different UNICOM across regions. Thinking about it, a vast improvement over VATSIM would be if all frequencies were open whenever someone is tuned to them -- in VATSIM, if a controller disconnects, there no longer is voice connection between the pilots on that frequency. This would also do away with the need for virtual ATC posts for each UNICOM. > > On VATSIM, pushing PTT does NOT disable radio reception on that radio, > > which is unrealistic. Make sure PTT turns the corresponding COM audio > > output off. On the issue of realistic distortions -- can anyone tell > > me what modulation air communication uses? > > Amplitude Modulation - that's why the sound is that bad .... I thought > we'll get close to reality by employing a GSM codec :-) OK, that's the easiest case as far as the handling of signal quality (no shifting as in SSB) and pile-ups (non-trivial in FM) go: just add the signals, with amplitudes related to distance (ok, it's getting complicated already as this means either dedicated downstreams to each pilot or multicasts of each transmission with mixing done by the pilot clients...). Andras ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
