FSHost test

[Karl]

In light of the cancellation of Trev's group flight for this time slot I thought it might be a good time to give another multiplatorm software a spin.

We will use FSHost from Chocolate software. I'm at work at the moment and can't write anything to elaborate. I'll add details as time allows.

In the mean time the client software can be found at:http://www.chocolatesoftware.com/fsh...ostclient.html . It is a small file, relatively easy to set up. The server software IS NOW running on my system soon at the same IP as the main FSX server though on a different machine. [23.255.202.27]

Further Information:
Click the "View replies to this event" to see additional details that YOU WILL NEED!

[ROBERT DUNN 2]

I'm in. I'll listen up further Wednesday. I'll initially log on with P3Dv2 (latest hotfix (...46) on Win 8.1. BigBox is available but currently not FSHost server installed nor configured.

[Storm]

Karl, there's a raft of documentation with FSHost that some may find overwhelming. If you can distill and present just what we need to set up a meaningful test - like kalo did for FScloud - I'm sure enough people will be attracted to the event to ensure a worthwhile comparison.

[Karl]

Karl, there's a raft of documentation with FSHost that some may find overwhelming. If you can distill and present just what we need to set up a meaningful test - like kalo did for FScloud - I'm sure enough people will be attracted to the event to ensure a worthwhile comparison.

Understood, that is the next step which I am doing now. Thx

[Karl]

09Sep15 14:00 EDT (18:00z)

• The FSHost server is running.
• Let me start with the hardest part, the port forwarding.
  • If you are not familiar with port forwarding talk with me or someone else at least one hour *BEFORE* the scheduled group flight on Thursday. After that we will not have time to help with this step.
  • The following is a list of the ports that need to be forwarded to your PC that is running your flightsim
    • TCP 47624
    • UDP 2300 to 2400
    • UDP 23456 (or your "2004 host port" on the Server / Options / Session tab of FSHost)
    • UDP 6073

• Once the ports are set up, start the flight sim in SINGLE PLAYER MODE. DO NOT CONNECT TO ANY MULTIPLAYER SESSION.

• Downlaod & install the FSHostClient at : http://www.chocolatesoftware.com/fsh...ostclient.html
  • There one for FSX Boxed/P3D and a separate one for FSX Steam. I have no experience with the Steam client.
  
  
• Start FSHostClient if not already done.

• Fill in the boxes with the desired Player name and IP (23.255.202.27).

• Click the button to "search IP for sessions" and wait for 5-15 seconds.

• MSFLIGHTS should show up in the middle box labeled "Sessions found".

• Click the Connect button.

• Watch this thread for additional information, tweaks and adjustments.

[Storm]

So no configuring your PC's firewalls for ports?
And how about using their FSPortTest program?

[Travis]

I just connected in with no port configuration(except default hosting ports for FSX from a different test Karl and I did a previous date.)
However I did get a MS firewall(allow access) message when trying to connect, of course I allowed it.
Karl was AFK, so didn't do much, but I saw his plane on the ground, Then tried switching his aircraft a few times. After the 3rd time consecutively it gave me a fatal error. I am not to surprised, I doubt FSX was made to handle constant plane changes like that. For now, I will say the cause of that fatal error was self induced. But I flew around for about 15 min prior and things were fine.

[Karl]

So no configuring your PC's firewalls for ports?
And how about using their FSPortTest program?

I think that the Win7 firewall does as Travis mentioned. I've don't recall any having to do that step. I took a wait and see attitude with it. So far 2 users have been able to connect fine with just the port forwarding.

The FSPorttest is a diagnostic tool. Not sure what it does.

[Storm]

Although unable to attend this test, I tried FShost last night with Lazerbolt and Travis as Karl had kindly left the server up. Impressions:

1. It was a very small quick download.
2. It required almost no set-up.
3. Port forwarding was unnecessary! After hearing about some people's experiences on Thursday's test, I tried running the FSHost client without setting up port forwarding on my router. It worked first time. I got the standard Microsoft message whether I wanted to allow access, and left it checked for local and unchecked for public, and thereafter it worked. I did not have to tinker with my router, firewalls or antivirus. That's important for pilots without level of technical expertise that would be necessary to successfully understand, implement and maintain port forwarding (i.e. the majority of pilots).
4. It was very easy to use.
5. There was no noticeable lag at all!
6. Many airplane states (smoke, flaps, gear, lights) seemed to be transmitted most (but not all) of the time.
7. FSHost is sensitive to exact aircraft + livery combinations. If someone has the aircraft you're flying but not the livery you're flying, you can't assume that they'll see the same aircraft with a another livery; they may well see a different aircraft altogether. Fortunately you can manage substitutions comprehensively.
8. It displayed other aircraft with a pronounced positional jitter, far greater we're used to when formation flying it someone has unlimited frames rather than locked. We experimented with various update rates to see if that made a difference (the default is 25 msec). These affected the update rate but sadly not the amount of the jitter. Small numbers showed little advantage over the default. Large numbers (>2000 msec) also introduced an altitude sag. We also tried changing the Windows priority of the FSHost process with no affect. (We didn't try adjusting the display FPS on each PC; AFAIK those were all locked at around 30.)

More thoughts on jitter (last point above)

• I feel the jitter is a substantial problem. Their FAQ mentions it only here. A cursory glance over their forums seems to show it has been a problem with FSHost for at least 8 years. That leads me to suspect that either it's a permanent insoluble problem or that perhaps there is no motivation to solve it.
• By comparison, FScloud gave us lag but no jitter. It remains to be seen whether a more local community dedicated server would improve the lag.
• Of the three of us testing, two said they would have preferred to have some lag but with no jitter, while one stated the jitter was more tolerable than the lag.

[Karl]

Thanks for the time and the summary Storm. The author has said in years past that he has put a substantial effort into resolving the jittery behavior with no success. We didn't do a tally count but the informal consensus with the folks present on Thursday was a preference to the jitters over the substantial lag.

Our two remaining options are VATSIM & DAFSIM. DAFSIM claims to have no lag. Some YouTube videos I've watched showed very fluid realistic movement of other players' aircraft. Kalo is working on that end.

I think next in our list should be VATSIM. I already know that generally movements are reasonably smooth but a 3-4 seconds lag is typical within VATSIM.

At this mid-point in testing I'm the most hopeful that DAFSIM will meet our needs. We'll just have to try them all out and see what we think.

[Travis]

I think next in our list should be VATSIM. I already know that generally movements are reasonably smooth but a 3-4 seconds lag is typical within VATSIM.

At this mid-point in testing I'm the most hopeful that DAFSIM will meet our needs. We'll just have to try them all out and see what we think.

I just thought of something about Vatsim. If these controllers start seeing groups of people flying I think it is either going to raise a red flag, or a controller is going to eagerly come over and try to control us. It may not be on the first day, but eventually I think it may pose a problem.

I really hope dafsim is what we are looking for. I hope Kalo gets a response soon!

[Karl]

If these controllers start seeing groups of people flying I think it is either going to raise a red flag, or a controller is going to eagerly come over and try to control us. It may not be on the first day, but eventually I think it may pose a problem.

There is that potential. It shouldn't be a problem for the testing phase. Longer term most issues could be avoided with communication between our staff and VATSIM. In the event a controller does pop up, a simple flight plan for a group of "XX" should avoid us having to do non-msFlight type normal separation. But all that is just if we choose to use them in the long run.

[Storm]

Looking forward to DAFSIM testing. :eagerness:

However, I'm not interested at all in VATSIM and will not take part in any testing, nor use it if we ever adopt it, including for my group flights. Notwithstanding the mutual antipathy between VATSIM and some of our most respected pilots, I'm looking for a system with zero - not minor, but zero - administrative overhead.

At the moment two or more friends go for a casual flight together on the spur of the moment, without preparation, and often change what they're doing, while they're flying, at least once. I feel they should always be able to do that, without planning, and without having to excuse themselves to any other part of the hierarchy, or fend off people who want them to fly in certain ways.

In my target system, flight plans of any kind should be unnecessary. I am not going to take part in that kind of enforced role playing, nor even use a system specifically built for that.

[Karl]

However, I'm not interested at all in VATSIM and will not take part in any testing, nor use it if we ever adopt it, including for my group flights. Notwithstanding the mutual antipathy between VATSIM and some of our most respected pilots, I'm looking for a system with zero - not minor, but zero - administrative overhead.

At the moment two or more friends go for a casual flight together on the spur of the moment, without preparation, and often change what they're doing, while they're flying, at least once. I feel they should always be able to do that, without planning, and without having to excuse themselves to any other part of the hierarchy, or fend off people who want them to fly in certain ways.

In my target system, flight plans of any kind should be unnecessary. I am not going to take part in that kind of enforced role playing, nor even use a system specifically built for that.

Understood, but in the spirit of evaluating all of our options, I think that it should be reviewed by us as part of this process. I'll also add that just like real life, I rarely file a flight plan for the types of flights that I do. I'm not dismissing your concerns. I just know that that the reality of VATSIM issues are a far cry from the horrid rumors on the street. Again, much like real life:biggrin-new:.

[Kalo]

Is vatsim only one server? If they only have one server and they force rules on everyone I couldn't really see it working...however it would still be interesting to test.