No gonna lie @904331 that my post had some pun intended to be provocative in it’s style, to force an answer I really do hope, you will find yourself limiting to add new functions just “as of yet”, to at least allow (stable or beta) release of 3.3 or 4.0, so we can start working on something, especially 3.2.10 is unusable for now due to mentioned bugs. Adding features later on can always happen.
For the screen and requests provided:
I can’t see sector indicator in Controllers lists.
Will windows be part of API (so we will be able to create own ones?)
I know that icons are bitmap hardcoded, but are windows colors will be changeable? I know system used in HUN are green, but in many places - don’t And this color itself is little distracting for some people. If this was changeable, especially with advanced colourings (like in symbology), this would decrease amount of required “raw Windows API” drawings made by plugins.
Firstly, thank you for this work - it’s nice to see some improvement in Euroscope.
However, as both a community user and as a director of ATC Training in one of the most in-demand Divisions globally, please, I implore you - do not let perfect be the enemy of good.
In VATSIM UK, we currently need to manage three, separate version of Euroscope - one to control, one to run Sweatbox sessions at the aerodrome level and a third to run Sweatbox sessions for radar ratings. This is due to there being a varied combination of different bugs or ‘features’ in different places that means we can’t just use one. The latest release of Euroscope, provided in June of this year, is a crashy beast that we cannot meaningfully use to control.
Whilst I am pleased to see so much change being produced, I think that I speak on behalf of the whole community when I say that we’d far rather see a higher number of small iterations, rather than a ‘big bang’ release that provides everything. Whilst window management and optimisation of the performance of Euroscope is welcome, as a professional software engineer myself, I believe that it is likely possible for you to draw a firm line in the sand with new features, deliver small improvements that stop us needing to run three version of Euroscope depending on which way the wind is blowing!
Euroscope is still used by hundreds of controllers on a daily basis across Europe. We desperately need something better than we have. I will forever be grateful for your freeware contributions to VATSIM and I genuinely thank you for all you’ve done. But once more, please can I ask that you consider seeking additional help with development if you lack the time and capacity to continue development independently.
Completely agree. Stable release, eliminations of bugs, performance boost (which is desperately needed with current ammount of traffic on VATSIM events) is a key. Rest features can be reasurred later.
OK, I got it. I can not say you are not right as I see as many as 800-1000 issues in Sentry weekly. So that is really not what you can call: stable enough.
Unfortunately most the problems related to one of the plug-ins. Mostly because of uroScope API is not thread safe. That is why I opted to redeighn the whole thing to implement thread safety from ground.
I do not feel the immediate pressure on my side as I did not have a crash since April this year. May be the traffic over Hungary is lower and/or I use only TopSky plug-in nothing else. Or may be that (as all the softwares) it runs better in the developer computer than on any other machine.
But I agree these numbers and your suggestions requires a stability prgress.
So I will change back to actual version and build new versions with limited or no new features, but hopefully more and more stable runs.
Please, help me testing the new releases time to time to see if I am on the right way or not.
You’ll get our support, Gergely. I think that in our biggest dreams, as well as you designing the software we haven’t imagine these amounts of aircraft. In “peaceful” night on EPWW CTR I can easily reach 1000 seen aircrafts within 2 hours when Range is set somewhere to 1/3 of Germany, 100nm towards Sweden and barely touching LOVV/LHCC. Is it actually possible to release 3.2.10 with improved bugs and maybe even on x64? Or it’s not as simply as changing the build? We are definitely looking for your version 4 of Euroscope, but some more stability right now would be really beneficial as well. A hard take I guess.
I really do hope, you will find yourself limiting to add new functions just “as of yet”, to at least allow (stable or beta) release of 3.3 or 4.0, so we can start working on something, especially 3.2.10 is unusable for now due to mentioned bugs. Adding features later on can always happen.