A ton of good ideas presented, hopefully not all on deaf ears.  As a online controller (who does not fly the network at all...but does IRL) I have an appreciation for the use of certification, continued training and learning, feedback, and testing.  With all that in mind, the need for annual checking should be included in any environment.  This concept is (for Vatsim) should not be limited to pilots but controllers as well. 

We check an individual to whatever the level (C1, S3, etc.) and never recheck/test them for competency again.  While some do an excellent job, others develop poor habits and deviate from taught standards with no return to square 0.  Does your ARTCC have 'undesirables' or persons who simply need some level of instruction/training whereby they are called out on concerns?  Apply the same logic to future 'rated' pilots here in Vatsim.  They enter the IFR world without any bi-annual requirement...never learning again without checking or feedback.

I understand the difficulties in keeping up with staff to instruct new members without the task of a annual (or bi-annual) review/check.  Increase the work to include the pilot-world and things become even more daunting.

Easy to point out problems and areas that are lacking....viable and achievable solutions, that's where the real talent is.

What is the set route function on some plans?  If listed it show a 0 or 0,1 or 0,1,2 etc.  The option is not listed on all fltplans

I took a rough look at the fixes others have posted and most are around 1000nm give or take.  Its not a limiting number or anything and of course the US is only so wide...but I think the concept of giving directs is a good thing overall.   As a night flyer (more so than day that is...) I appreciate the directs that are given, except when specifically planned to avoid/advantage of wind or weather patterns.  To keep on thread topic, I wish Vatsim/Vatusa had some global guidance to further clarify and provide a uniform approach to the topic (remaining subject to the controller on duty as to if/what/where a clearance is given).  But then again there are numerous areas whereby uniform policy should be implemented....it's just something that's not done for some reason or another.

Obviously it adds an element to oceanic ops that can provide another level to the experience on the flight deck and controller side.  For domestic operations....I can understand what RR eluded to regarding juggling another client in ones background that is not functional directly with Vatsim.  Very difficult (for me..) to determine who has the on-board capability and is using it.  With rapid changes in domestic en-route operations, particularly near airspace boundaries, I think voice service is the only way to go.  After all, how many people have advocated the elimination of 'text pilot' with the newest system capabilities?  Perhaps a more robust domestic CPDLC product, integrated within common/approved clients, could be somewhere in Vatsims distant future and serve as the text replacement.

[quote author=Reuben Prevost link=topic=7154.msg31659#msg31659 date=1503602082

I was explaining to a group of aircraft how the "heavy" designation is not necessary in enroute airspace. Both of these pilots were VATUSA Instructors (I didn't know at the time) and it seemed as if one of the Instructors was upset that I had given the explanation. I went on to explain that we all make mistakes and that I wasn't trying to be rude. I think that the situation concluded positively, so kudos to the Instructors.
/quote]

Just a point of clarity, and I wasn't there for the conversation, so some of this may have been covered.

Enroute.."Heavy" may be omitted except for the following:
- communicated with a Terminal facility
- communications when the Enroute Controller is providing approach services (which is often!)
- communications when separation may be less than 5 miles via LOA or procedure
- when providing traffic advisories

While not required, pilots should make their initial call to a enroute center with the 'heavy' callsign; subsequent communications do not need to be prefixed with 'heavy'.  All terminal phase operations require the heavy callsign with all communications.

I *think* this is all correct.....like the thread, I reserve the right to be mistaken