J. Howard Joshua Howard Interview with AVSIM

[n4gix 4,955]

Am I the only one who finds it utterly ironic that of all the things left out of Flight, ATC/ATIS appears now to be such an important lack......yet from the time of its introduction in FS2004 it has been one of the things most often complained about and ridiculed by FS9/FSX users?Considering the sheer size of the gvp (voice) file (~211 MB), coupled with the general scorn which seemed to be the norm, it's no wonder that MSGS made the decision to omit it from Flight! :shok:I said it then and I say it again, be very careful what you complain about, because Microsoft is listening! :Thinking:

[RoboRay 126]

AVSIM has over 70,000 members. 136 is are less than 0.2% of them so their views are statistically unimportant in thems of influencing Microsoft.

You missed the important part of my quote... "those members of the AVSIM Forum who feel sufficiently motivated to answer the poll."The statement I responded to appeared to be addressing the percentage of responders who answered in a certain way, not the percentage of forum-members who responded at all, nor their significance to Microsoft. No mention was made of the number of responders in comparison to the entire registered total members of AVSIM, the vast majority of which probably do not even frequent the Flight Forum.

[Oracle427 45]

No you aren't the only one. I was never thrilled with the ATC and would have been dissapointed if they merely rolled it forward to "check off the box".

[dburne 2]

Frankly, with people in multiplayer frequently choosing to buzz around airports or some other point of interest, it seems to replicate real life in a way. I think if the servers were hosting much larger games, this would be even less of an issue.

And yet another very interesting take on this issue, ie the lack of AI...So yes, as the sim grows and the community grows - assuming it does - then there very well could possible be other aircraft in our vicinity - while not AI so to speak but real folks. From what I hear on these forums, don't know how accurate this is, sounds like just signing in to Live and flying one may very well see other aircraft - other folks flying if they happen to be on the same server and in the same vicinity...

[tom79 6]

Am I the only one who finds it utterly ironic that of all the things left out of Flight, ATC/ATIS appears now to be such an important lack......yet from the time of its introduction in FS2004 it has been one of the things most often complained about and ridiculed by FS9/FSX users?

Hm, I don't think the people complaining now about the lack of ATC in Flight are the same ones who complained about its simplicity in MSFS (VATSIM people I suppose).When I bought X-Plane9, I was soon bored with it because of the lack of AI/ATC.When I fly airliners in FSX, I want AI/ATC because busy airspaces make the experience much more immersive.When I fly GA planes in FSX, I do not care about that. I don't even tune the tower frequency at controlled airports to get takeoff clearance. I just push the throttle forward and commence my takeoff roll (which resulted in a few collisions in the past, but hey, it's a sim!). And VFR ATC in FSX is so boring that I don't use it enroute either. But sometimes I tune the center frequency to have some distraction from the monotonous engine sounds.Therefore I can live with the lack of ATC in Flight, but I'm not opposed to it either. Same goes for AI traffic. If MS adds these two features to Flight, it'll be nice to have, but currently I don't miss them that much.But seeing that a lot of people actually do care and find no AI/ATC the biggest drawback in Flight, I think it would be wise for MS to bring these features back.

[dburne 2]

Am I the only one who finds it utterly ironic that of all the things left out of Flight, ATC/ATIS appears now to be such an important lack......yet from the time of its introduction in FS2004 it has been one of the things most often complained about and ridiculed by FS9/FSX users?

Now that is a very good point indeed! Yes when I think about it, that is very ironic!I am probably in the minority in that I did not find the default ATC in FSX all that bad and never felt the need to purchase a third party atc program because of it. But I know on the forums it was a major source of contention. I frankly never really had issues using the default ATC. And I have logged many hours in FSX, most of which were ILS/IFR medium to long haul in the 737.With Flight, I guess I am in the minority as well, as I find I really do not miss having the ATC. Probably because unlike with FSX, all my flying obviously is GA short distance flying, the vast majority of which to date have been missions, challenges, jobs.

[mgh 89]

You missed the important part of my quote... "those members of the AVSIM Forum who feel sufficiently motivated to answer the poll."The statement I responded to appeared to be addressing the percentage of responders who answered in a certain way, not the percentage of forum-members who responded at all, nor their significance to Microsoft.

And you missed the original point to which I was replying which was directed to the significance to Microsoft.

And apparently you are not certainly alone in that regard if you go by the recent poll results elsewhere on this forum.I have a feeling we will most likely see both atc and some level of ai craft come along before too long...

[Arwen 289]

And yet another very interesting take on this issue, ie the lack of AI...So yes, as the sim grows and the community grows - assuming it does - then there very well could possible be other aircraft in our vicinity - while not AI so to speak but real folks. From what I hear on these forums, don't know how accurate this is, sounds like just signing in to Live and flying one may very well see other aircraft - other folks flying if they happen to be on the same server and in the same vicinity...

There's a huge difference from having AI traffic in a flight sim and seeing a few other players flying around. Once Alaska is released, how often do you think you'll be see other players? 16 aircraft will be spread over 600,000 square miles (not including Hawaii). Plus AI traffic is way more than just seeing other aircraft in the sky.

[RoboRay 126]

I've avoided ATC as much as possible in real life and I don't really miss it in Flight.AI Traffic, though... That I want to see. Planes, cars and boats.

[n4gix 4,955]

No you aren't the only one. I was never thrilled with the ATC and would have been dissapointed if they merely rolled it forward to "check off the box".

Well, that's really the main point right there. Most people I suspect would be surprised to learn that the ATC/ATIS feature introduced in FS9 and carried forward to FSX was one of the most costly features. You'd have to really study the "ATC Voicepack SDK" to appreciate just how complex and expensive it was to create. Each of the ten "voices" required recording, mixing, and encoding around 8,600 individual .wav files. That's a total of 86 thousand files!!!

Recording and editing audio content is the most time-intensive task involved in creating a voicepack. Flight Simulator 2004 contains voicepacks that were built using nearly 5,000 .wav files per voice. Agent and airport names (e.g., “Seattle Tower,” “Heathrow Ground,” and “Cairo Approach”) constitute the largest percentage of .wav files: close to 3,600 agent and airport name .wav files were recorded in each voice. Even if you choose not to record agent names for a new voicepack, you must still record and edit many phrase and token .wav files. The user will not hear any phrases or names that do not have an associated .wav file.

Given the attitudes expressed by the "vocal minority" and the almost total silence from those who did appreciate the effort at least to provide a counter-balance, the end result for Flight should not be all that surprising...... at times, simmers are their own worst enemy. :vava:

[Oracle427 45]

One Alaska is released, how often do you think you'll be see other players? 16 aircraft will be spread over 600,000 square miles (not including Hawaii). Plus AI traffic is way more than just seeing other aircraft in the sky.

I have no idea what it is really like over there, but I would imagine that the skies of Alaska would be rather empty except for some areas of concentration. A 15% GA setting is generating a realistic amount of traffic for me in FSX.By more than just seeing other aircraft, I assume you mean the stuff moving about on the ground. Personally, I'm not interested as I always turn it off to eek out more performance elsewhere. Though, I can see how it would help with immersion.

[RoboRay 126]

And you missed the original point to which I was replying which was directed to the significance to Microsoft.

It could have been more apparant. Your statement only referenced the total number of responders and mentioned those who voted in certain ways.But this is a rather pointless argument. :hi: Perhaps we could discuss something more important, such as the implementation of Leaderboards.On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.

[Arwen 289]

I have no idea what it is really like over there, but I would imagine that the skies of Alaska would be rather empty except for some areas of concentration. A 15% GA setting is generating a realistic amount of traffic for me in FSX.

From the Alaska Division of Statewide Aviation:"Aviation touches all aspects of life in rural Alaska, and is a basic mode of transportation because Alaska is huge and approximately 82% of Alaskan communities are not served by roads. Most of the time there is no practical alternative. So Alaska has six times as many pilots per capita and 16 times as many aircraft per capita when compared to the rest of the United States. Rural Aviation covers all Alaskan airports except the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport and Fairbanks International Airport. The Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities owns 252 rural airports, and the Division of Statewide Aviation prepares policies, procedures, and programs to develop, construct, operate, and manage these rural public airports."

[dburne 2]

There's a huge difference from having AI traffic in a flight sim and seeing a few other players flying around. Once Alaska is released, how often do you think you'll be see other players? 16 aircraft will be spread over 600,000 square miles (not including Hawaii). Plus AI traffic is way more than just seeing other aircraft in the sky.

Certainly a good point to make indeed.

[nbz 4]

I would like to thank Tom for the best interview on Flight that I have read so far.Given the very controversial nature of Joshua Howard's answers, I would also like to thank *everyone* on this loooong thread for the civilised and productive discussion.On the topic of ATC, it became clear on the beta forum that the Flight team is thinking about implementing it at some point. They explicitly did NOT say they will, or will not, do it, but it is considered. It was also made clear that MS is very well aware of the shortcomings / bugs that the FSX ATC has.