Compromises

[Tierborn 188]

WOW .. a bunch of elitist .. You guys believe if you don't use it, get rid of it.  I do not eat lamb chops . lets get rid of them.  I dont drive a Lamborghini .. lets get rid of Lamborghinis.  I dont use hospitals.. lets get rid of them.  Damn Elitist .... :(

[Guest veeray]

comprimises generally don't include taking already finished systems out.... so really it's funny to see people axing things they don't use as if that's going to get more of what they really want.

[GHarrall 494]

If the ATC as exists now, is simply ported over to 'Flight' what is the problem?It wont consume any extra programming resources and whilst its not great, its better than no built in ATC at all!!So not a 'compromise' at all really......The compromise I would like to see is getting rid of backwards compatability completely and starting fresh with a sim that actually performs well on current hardware. It needs to come ready to go with a full SDK as well.Then we could actually have some 'headroom' for advanced addons when the 3rd party guys get their heads round the SDK.

[dmaher 0]

Even if the ATC system was simply maintained as is there is not telling how much work would still be required to keep it compatible with the changes to other systems….so it’s not a freebee. By the same token removing ATC altogether would likely have unexpected repercussions for other systems. So it would also be a lot of work to cut it.(not to mention it would break 3rd party ATC...and possibly even complicate Squawkbox) I’d say, the compromise isn’t so much about keeping it or cutting it…it’s more about the level of resources that get allotted to it. The blue-sky threads we have about what we want in Flight are helpful, but the real work for designers is about setting out the right priorities. And making calls on difficult compromises. I think this thread sort of cuts to the chase ;)

[simmerhead 885]

WOW .. a bunch of elitist .. You guys believe if you don't use it, get rid of it. I do not eat lamb chops . lets get rid of them. I dont drive a Lamborghini .. lets get rid of Lamborghinis. I dont use hospitals.. lets get rid of them. Damn Elitist ....

Yep. I speak for myself only. Like most elitists I don't speak on behalf of others unless they have told me to do so. I'd consider that both rude and unintelligent. Of others I know nothing, of myself I know a little. I don't claim to know how others use or intend to use flight simulators. I can only voice an opinion based on my personal expereiences. If you read my original thread you'll see that I asked the following question: "...what compromises would you be willing to make to get the best flight sim for YOUR needs?"

[David Roch 1,982]

WOW .. a bunch of elitist .. You guys believe if you don't use it, get rid of it.  I do not eat lamb chops . lets get rid of them.  I dont drive a Lamborghini .. lets get rid of Lamborghinis.  I dont use hospitals.. lets get rid of them.  Damn Elitist .... :(

Useless remark.

[Tierborn 188]

I'm not saying this is what I want. I'm just saying that realistically compromises will be made, wether we like it or not. I'd rather have a sim that is very good in some areas, than today's jack of all trades and master of none simulator. ATC in free flight? Make it real or cut it out. Fly online through VATSIM if you want real ATC. Missions? By using the mission format custom ATC can be programmed for each mission to make it more realistic. A mission can simply be a realistic flight from A to B.

The ENTIRE flight sim experience is an approximation in realism.  So dont stop at ATC .... with this logic, just about the entire sim should be eliminated.

[FlyingWild 0]

LOL! Why do we need to compromise on anything?

The ENTIRE flight sim experience is an approximation in realism. So dont stop at ATC .... with this logic, just about the entire sim should be eliminated.

[simmerhead 885]

The ENTIRE flight sim experience is an approximation in realism.

On that point I agree completely. That doesn't take away the fact that some approximations in flight simulators are far more realistic than others.

So dont stop at ATC .... with this logic, just about the entire sim should be eliminated.

Not the kind of logic I subscribe to. Souns more like a case of reductio ad absurdum to me.

[greggerm 312]

If there were no compromises, we'd have no simulator - Microsoft would continually scrap what they had for something new as technology advanced. As others have rightfully noted, pretty much everything in MS Flight is subject to some sort of compromise. There's only so many development hours in the day, and development dollars in the bank. It's my estimation that nearly all components in MSFlight will experience some sort of improvement.... but only YOU can decide what it "at the expense" of. Each person will place different weights onto the different components of the simulator, wishing that Microsoft spent more time on Topic A instead of any time on Topic B. On the stub topic of air traffic control and improving, removing, or otherwise messing with it - we have no idea what the current ATC systems in FSX are tied to. The current ATC system may be an integral part of the missions engine (and vice versa). It could come to pass that we will see improvements to the ATC systems simply because there are improvements in store for the missions world. I don't think you'll EVER see the "Radar Contact" level of depth in the built-in ATC systems for the same reasons you'll never see a PMDG-quality 747 right out-of-the-box. The development time and expense needed to ramp up that degree of specialization for ATC is simply way out of the budget. (Yes, even Microsoft with their infinite checkbook has budgets) Technically it's possible, but from a realistic point of view, it's just not in the cards. Taking that a step further, the biggest fear most student pilots seem to have (*and the one fear I had) was screwing up on the radios. Users of VATSIM, IVAO, and Radar Contact all crave a more realistic environment, but the built in ATC provides a rich-enough air traffic control structure for average users which isn't terribly complex or overbearing. I would imagine that far more armchair pilots use and enjoy the built-in ATC than you all may think. Coding in more complexity to ATC may very well turn armchair pilots away from the feature, and coding in options for variable complexity (easy, average, realistic) will only add more and more hours to an already strained development budget.I always get a chuckle at folks who zoom in on one small component of flight simulator and hope for massive improvements to it. This type of attitude is what often leads to the most disgruntled folks as more information comes available. Remember folks - temper your expectations. Improvements will likely be spread out across every facet of the simulator... graphics, flight models, performance, AI, missions, weather, etc. etc.... if you have an imbalance in your expectations, it may lead to disappointment. -Greg

[ahuimanu 50]

ATC Compromises

• We DO NEED an ATC engine - don't compromise here.
• Why? VATSIM, or an organic equivalent, will NEVER cut it. I've been a controller and pilot on VATSIM and the coverage is NEVER going to be adequate.
• Trying to re-record the voice actors will not likely work either - don't worry about it.
• ATC SDK (AI) - Leave AI as basic as it is now, or even more so, and then open up more control over the AI and ATC so that we can program in advanced behaviors as needed.
• ATC SDK (Voice) - allow for an EditVoicePack equivalent to customize and regionalize the voices. We can crowdsource the voices or, in not too many years from now, synthesize them.
• ATC SDK (Terminal Operations AI) - allow for direct control in order to facilitate user-controlled smoothing of terminal area operations (ground, tower, approach, etc.). Also, offer the facilities to provide 3rd party solutions.
• ATC SDK (Terminal Operations AI) - allow for the ability to have varying levels of AI per phase (more in terminals, less en route, or vice versa, etc.).
• DLC - Work with 3rd party modelers to populate the AI ATC environment, don't worry about built-in models and fictitious airlines.

Unacceptable compromise: elimination of ATC; I'd sooner see missions go (which I know they won't - MS is totally into introducing "game" elements into Flight in the same way the the Sims usurped Sim City).

[simmerhead 885]

Missions are ironically the feature that is most capable of making flight simulator realistic. Too bad the potential of the mission engine hasn't been used for this purpose yet.

If there were no compromises, we'd have no simulator - Microsoft would continually scrap what they had for something new as technology advanced. As others have rightfully noted, pretty much everything in MS Flight is subject to some sort of compromise. There's only so many development hours in the day, and development dollars in the bank. It's my estimation that nearly all components in MSFlight will experience some sort of improvement.... but only YOU can decide what it "at the expense" of. Each person will place different weights onto the different components of the simulator, wishing that Microsoft spent more time on Topic A instead of any time on Topic B. On the stub topic of air traffic control and improving, removing, or otherwise messing with it - we have no idea what the current ATC systems in FSX are tied to. The current ATC system may be an integral part of the missions engine (and vice versa). It could come to pass that we will see improvements to the ATC systems simply because there are improvements in store for the missions world. I don't think you'll EVER see the "Radar Contact" level of depth in the built-in ATC systems for the same reasons you'll never see a PMDG-quality 747 right out-of-the-box. The development time and expense needed to ramp up that degree of specialization for ATC is simply way out of the budget. (Yes, even Microsoft with their infinite checkbook has budgets) Technically it's possible, but from a realistic point of view, it's just not in the cards. Taking that a step further, the biggest fear most student pilots seem to have (*and the one fear I had) was screwing up on the radios. Users of VATSIM, IVAO, and Radar Contact all crave a more realistic environment, but the built in ATC provides a rich-enough air traffic control structure for average users which isn't terribly complex or overbearing. I would imagine that far more armchair pilots use and enjoy the built-in ATC than you all may think. Coding in more complexity to ATC may very well turn armchair pilots away from the feature, and coding in options for variable complexity (easy, average, realistic) will only add more and more hours to an already strained development budget.I always get a chuckle at folks who zoom in on one small component of flight simulator and hope for massive improvements to it. This type of attitude is what often leads to the most disgruntled folks as more information comes available. Remember folks - temper your expectations. Improvements will likely be spread out across every facet of the simulator... graphics, flight models, performance, AI, missions, weather, etc. etc.... if you have an imbalance in your expectations, it may lead to disappointment. -Greg

Interresting read Greg. Thanks a bunch!

[Tierborn 188]

ATC Compromises

• We DO NEED an ATC engine - don't compromise here.
• Why? VATSIM, or an organic equivalent, will NEVER cut it.  I've been a controller and pilot on VATSIM and the coverage is NEVER going to be adequate.
• Trying to re-record the voice actors will not likely work either - don't worry about it.
• ATC SDK (AI) - Leave AI as basic as it is now, or even more so, and then open up more control over the AI and ATC so that we can program in advanced behaviors as needed.
• ATC SDK (Voice) - allow for an EditVoicePack equivalent to customize and regionalize the voices.  We can crowdsource the voices or, in not too many years from now, synthesize them.
• ATC SDK (Terminal Operations AI) - allow for direct control in order to facilitate user-controlled smoothing of terminal area operations (ground, tower, approach, etc.).  Also, offer the facilities to provide 3rd party solutions.
• ATC SDK (Terminal Operations AI) - allow for the ability to have varying levels of AI per phase (more in terminals, less en route, or vice versa, etc.).
• DLC - Work with 3rd party modelers to populate the AI ATC environment, don't worry about built-in models and fictitious airlines.

Unacceptable compromise: elimination of ATC; I'd sooner see missions go (which I know they won't - MS is totally into introducing "game" elements into Flight in the same way the the Sims usurped Sim City).

My gut tells me that missions will be a bigger part of Flight,  The world beyond our flight sim community loves goal oriented play.... just look at all the games that have people chasing game achievements.   Flight will be chocked full of missions and achievements to appeal to the broader flight sim market.

[Attila 2]

I must say I am in 100% agreement about making no compromises on ATC. If MS wants a game to bring FS9 and FSX people together all using Flight, I can think of nothing better than giving us the SDK tools so the community can develop a much better ATC/AI system.If Flight does not make GREAT improvements in some or all of these areas: performance, atc (sdk), weather, flight dynamics - MS is running the risk of dividing the community in three. Missions and better looking terrain from 2000' are not going to get many people to use Flight, especially if add-ons need to be bought again.Each new iteration of the game should bring significant improvements in some area that makes people abandon the old and pay for the new. What better way to do this than simply give us the tools to improve the game ourselves when said tools already exist and all you need is to package and document them.MS should view the SDKs as an integral part of the product. This is the stuff that makes the community stay together until the next version of the game comes out. I am glad to hear that there will be someone hired to look after the SDKs and I hope that one of the things she does is make sure that the SDKs are feature complete and properly documented.

[Guest veeray]

My gut tells me that missions will be a bigger part of Flight, The world beyond our flight sim community loves goal oriented play.... just look at all the games that have people chasing game achievements. Flight will be chocked full of missions and achievements to appeal to the broader flight sim market.

Ding you get one point! But I'm sure someone will just label it as speculation because they think Flight SIm exists in a vacuum.