VoxATC doesn't seem to handle some phraseology correctly. Is anyone else annoyed by this?Standard phraseology for an initial contact goes like this:1. Who you are talking to2. Who you are3. Where you are4. What you wantSo when I make my first call to request taxi for takeoff to do pattern work, I am expecting to call as follows:"Renton Ground, Cessna 0000X, at parking, taxi for takeoff, closed pattern, with Bravo"This works in real life, but doesn't work with VoxATC. VoxATC wants to hear this:"Renton Ground, Cessna 0000X, request taxi for pattern"That's not standard phraseology. What happened to 3 "Where you are"? Additionally, why can't I say "taxi for takeoff, closed pattern", or "with Bravo"?If I want to go on a local flight, in real life I would request "taxi for takeoff" or "taxi to the active" or "taxi to 33", not "taxi for local" the way VoxATC makes me say it.When VoxATC Ground gives me my taxi instructions, I am supposed to read back:"Taxi to Runway 33 via Alpha, Delta, Kilo, and Bravo altimeter 2991 Cessna 00X"Normally, Ground wouldn't give me an altimeter reading (I earlier told them I had information Bravo). Also, that's a bizarre taxi sequence - the correct sequence is simply "via Alpha" - but that's a subject for a different post.On readback I would simply say "Taxi to 33" instead of "Taxi to Runway 33". But VoxATC can't handle those variations.Merely reading what VoxATC puts up in its window into the microphone (and having it accepted on the second try no matter what I say) is, IMO, a pretty shallow user experience. Surely it wouldn't be *that* hard to parse what actually comes in from the speech recognizer and fit it to one of a few patterns to allow for more flexibility. Or even expose the grammar in XML files so volunteers in the community could improve this.

[W]hen I make my first call to request taxi for takeoff to do pattern work, I am expecting to call as follows:"Renton Ground, Cessna 0000X, at parking, taxi for takeoff, closed pattern, with Bravo"This works in real life, but doesn't work with VoxATC. VoxATC wants to hear this:"Renton Ground, Cessna 0000X, request taxi for pattern"That's not standard phraseology. What happened to 3 "Where you are"? Additionally, why can't I say "taxi for takeoff, closed pattern", or "with Bravo"?

The input engine does allow for some variance - I've tried slipping in the odd "roger that" and "good day DFW tower" and everything went smoothly. I just made a quick pattern flight and while my prompt didn't include my stand, I spoke it and VA logged it and proceeded fine. I didn't try adding "with Bravo" but I expect it would have accepted that too.(Btw, it seems all VA sessions start out with "Information Bravo." The developer has acknowledged such and I assume will randomize that in the future.)Some things won't work though, I seem to have found if the first thing it expects is your callsign, then give that first. You can then feel free to call the controller "sweetie" or whatever you like. :(

If I want to go on a local flight, in real life I would request "taxi for takeoff" or "taxi to the active" or "taxi to 33", not "taxi for local" the way VoxATC makes me say it.

I haven't made a local flight, so I can't say. You do have a good point though in that more variance of the parsing engine would be nice. (Especially requesting a runway on the initial contact.)

When VoxATC Ground gives me my taxi instructions, I am supposed to read back:"Taxi to Runway 33 via Alpha, Delta, Kilo, and Bravo altimeter 2991 Cessna 00X"Normally, Ground wouldn't give me an altimeter reading (I earlier told them I had information Bravo). Also, that's a bizarre taxi sequence - the correct sequence is simply "via Alpha" - but that's a subject for a different post.

I have seen quite a varied set of readback requests actually. Here are the last nine IFR taxi readbacks that I've logged:

 taxi to runway one one altimeter two niner eight three acme two two eighttaxi to gate alpha one one via alpha delta tango and bravo acme two two eight taxi to runway three one left via golf acme seven fourtaxi to park one acme seven fourtaxi to holding point runway two six right via november acme three eight eighttaxi to park one acme three eight eighttaxi to holding point runway two four via kilo tango delta alpha and delta acme four one fourtaxi to gate three acme four one fourtaxi to runway zero niner altimeter two niner niner one acme one seven six onetaxi to park one via tango acme one seven six onetaxi to holding point runway two seven center via mike acme two seven twotaxi to gate seven via alpha and delta acme two seven twotaxi to holding point runway two six right via november charlie and bravo acme three eight threetaxi to park one via yankee acme three eight threetaxi to holding point runway zero two via kilo and alpha acme eight one eighttaxi to gate one zero via alpha acme eight one eighttaxi to holding point runway one six via mike lima whiskey echo and delta acme two two five one taxi to gate four one four acme two two five one 

(I fly Acme, if you didn't notice. :()So there's some variance in that small sample - some calls don't list any taxiways, some list only the primary, some are specific in the path. Some include altimeter readings (despite having acked Bravo) and some don't. The variance could be accounted for by chance and it could be that you're rolling boxcars in getting altimeter calls and specific taxipaths.Although for pattern work I don't think VA prompts you to listen to ATIS and therefore I wouldn't be surprised if it always includes the altimeter reading there. (Although knowing that you did include "information Bravo" should be a key that the controller doesn't have to include the altimeter. Unless the pressure changed since the ATIS "recording.")

Merely reading what VoxATC puts up in its window into the microphone (and having it accepted on the second try no matter what I say) is, IMO, a pretty shallow user experience.

I really felt PO'ed after a few days when I realized this, but after thinking on the matter that the UI choice is to either allow nn retries before letting the user proceed or blocking the user altogether unless every phoneme matches... a limited number of retries is the better answer. There's a setting that allows you to increase the "missed chances" it allows before assuming an input was made correctly. (I bumped mine to 6 to force me to speak very clearly.) And some things - such as callsigns - it will require you to say correctly each time.

Surely it wouldn't be *that* hard to parse what actually comes in from the speech recognizer and fit it to one of a few patterns to allow for more flexibility. Or even expose the grammar in XML files so volunteers in the community could improve this.

IMO VA is a nice example of this. It's not perfect, goodness no. But it does parse voice input - I had to prove it to myself so I tried this - get clearance and taxi instructions to somewhere. Pull up to a hold point that isn't the hold point you're being guided to. Press 0 to call up the option menu and select the option to "request cross runway" then pick that runway and when you get the prompt to say the magic words, call ready for takeoff instead - "[name] tower, [callsign] ready for takeoff." (Or do it vice-versa, taxi to you takeoff point and when promped to call out that you're ready, say "[name] tower, [callsign] request cross runway nn."It does parse what you're saying - I tried many times to trip it up and was successful in having my verbal request acknowledged - clarity of speech notwithstanding. Granted there are more ways I would like to to say something to a VoxATC controller at times - but after a month or so of use I've grown accustomed to the expected call and response that I don't bother reading the text any more - I know what's expected from me and I'm pretty good in guessing what will be accepted. (Although I do have to read a lot of names - SIDs, STARs, fixes, unfamiliar airports, etc.)Finally, there are XML syntax files although there's no guide as to how they could be edited. A lot could be done there.Regards,

I greatly appreciate the time you took to respond. Thank you.I did look into the XML syntax files to see if anything could be customized, but they are for the voice trainer. They don't have anything to do with in-game interaction."after thinking on the matter that the UI choice is to either allow nn retries"Agreed, though that wasn't actually my point. VoxATC is recognizing speech, but only just enough to know if you spoke one of the things it displays in its short list. So it's not much more engaging than a phone tree. When I can fly without a flight plan (or on a diversion), tune in a nearby tower, and spontaneously call "Foofield Tower, Cessna 0000X, ten miles North, inbound for the option, with Bravo", and Foofield Tower responds, then I will be a happy customer. Actually, even if I were limited to simply saying "Foofield Tower, Cessna 0000X", and up pops up a list of a few things I can say to that tower, that would also make me happy, particularly if I can also tune any nearby ATIS/AWOS while enroute.I guess I still haven't warmed up to VoxATC just yet.

When I can fly without a flight plan (or on a diversion), tune in a nearby tower, and spontaneously call "Foofield Tower, Cessna 0000X, ten miles North, inbound for the option, with Bravo", and Foofield Tower responds, then I will be a happy customer. Actually, even if I were limited to simply saying "Foofield Tower, Cessna 0000X", and up pops up a list of a few things I can say to that tower, that would also make me happy, particularly if I can also tune any nearby ATIS/AWOS while enroute.I guess I still haven't warmed up to VoxATC just yet.

That would be a very worthwhile feature add, and one that I'd like to take advantage of. Just last year I moved from mostly VFR flying to learning basic IFR so I'm happy with VoxATC for what it provides - the most realistic IFR ATC experience for FSX that I've seen.Yes, I'd like to be able to listen to enroute wx or to tune to a random tower and listen to traffic, but I have other addons that give me a local wx interface so I'm not lacking in that regard. (My current wants would seem contradictory - more situational predictibility yet more flexible phraseology -- yes, I want a floor wax and a dessert topping. :()