PMDG Announced Global Flight Operations at FSE 2018

[liamgiles 5]

14 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

Depends on what you're looking to do. We'll obviously be coordinating with other devs to integrate ACARS/CPDLC in their products (SDK of some sort). APIs will be available for VAs to manage their own pilot rosters, and so on.

The community contributions are mainly liveries, at least in the context of my earlier post. All the same, I know we haven't thought of everything that could be cool in this system, so depending on what the idea is...

Understandable, obviously we don't know what you guys are planning for release, in terms of features, but one of the things I'm thinking about, depending on the data that would be exposed to us, is things like achievements (such as things like successfully recover from a failure, complete rotations etc), fpm leaderboards, general gamification of the stats outpoured.

One of the things I'd really like to see implemented, is if the user isn't flying on vatsim is to create a tool that would generate traffic and flight plans based on active flights inside of Global Flight Ops.

If it's not on the roadmap to offer an open API like that, then thats cool, these were just some of the things I was thinking about when I heard it would be open to developers. I may have just missunderstood what it was you meant by that.

Edited June 13, 2018 by liamgiles

[Skywolf 992]

For me this is gonna be an awesome addon.  Just the experience of this will make my Flightsim fun.  So much is happening (again, I have no clue)...but sounds awesome and looks super awesome.

I am still learning my PMDG products (omg, so much to learn but I am getting my money's worth).

Finally something so new, that takes Flightsim realism up few notches.  This is just fantastic.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Skywolf

[Richard McDonald Woods 168]

@Liam Giles,

Perhaps you could look at my post at VATSIM

I would value your reactions.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

5 hours ago, Richard McDonald Woods said:

@Liam Giles,

Perhaps you could look at my post at VATSIM

I would value your reactions.

Hmm...he was my first thought of someone who'd likely tackle it, given how many things he's developed for the network. Seems odd to me, but what he does and doesn't develop is entirely his choice, and I won't argue with his decision.

[xTiMm_ 50]

Ross might consider it if VATSIM would ever state the position concerning CPDLC officially.
I never heard something about CPDLC integration in the codes of VATSIM (house based service, not via Hoppie for example).

So I guess he will not do something where he first has to fight for some basics to be done on VATSIM side.
But did I understood correctly: in this case we will not be able to communicate through PMDG CPDLC with VATSIM ATC stations? 😲

 

13 hours ago, klm251 said:

QW has a good 787

Lets say, they have a ok 787 😉

Edited June 14, 2018 by xTiMm_

[Olympic260 415]

15 minutes ago, xTiMm_ said:

Ross might consider it if VATSIM would ever state the position concerning CPDLC officially.
I never heard something about CPDLC integration in the codes of VATSIM (house based service, not via Hoppie for example).

So I guess he will not do something where he first has to fight for some basics to be done on VATSIM side.
But did I understood correctly: in this case we will not be able to communicate through PMDG CPDLC with VATSIM ATC stations? 😲

 

Ross was asked if he is willing to develop some kind of AI ATC for when actual ATCH is not available and use the CDPLC to communicate as I understand. For that he said he is not going to develop.

In order to communicate wit CDPLC with any online netwrok controller the proper program should be developed, either a plugin form Euroscope or for Vstarts or IVAP radar client etc. So the best question to Ross or Euroscope develope etc is if they will be creating such an interface when the GFO is released.

[Richard McDonald Woods 168]

Hi Chris,

Although not yet completely thought through, my idea would require no development within VATSIM nor controller clients. Because of my proposed AI function for CPDLC when there is no FIR controller on duty, the development would be transparent to on-duty controllers. This is why I initially asked Ross if he would consider an AI extension to vPilot.

I am proposing that, when an FIR is not being controlled, the AI would act as the FIR controller to exchange messages with pilots flying in that FIR. Should a controller come on duty, the AI would stop acting and the controller would start acting as though from an as yet uncontrolled FIR. This would give the pilot a supported experience in what are usually unmanned FIRs.

At the cockpit end of communications, the pilot would experience a seamless operation. Once the GFO CPDLC cockpit interface is available, the AI function could interface to it relatively easily.

I am eager to receive any perceived problems with such a function.

[xTiMm_ 50]

I don´t understand why we should get a possibility to communicate with someone if there is no one online (for example of an online pilot).
I am sure that even in real, CPDLC is not always the communication-tool to be used as priority. Its mainly used to get some infos or a PDC but not always as a communication.

Because if we make CPDLC as a common communication-tool, we might loose even more ATC-guys online. My wish is to get a "helping tool" but not with a AI-function which is giving me stupid advises which are then over the time maybe outdated and so on. Give us a function to communicate with the ATC, communication to a "operations" and thats it. 😄

[xTiMm_ 50]

 

On 6/11/2018 at 7:51 PM, scandinavian13 said:

Another example:

You want a gate? Cool. Send a gate request, and you'll get an automated response for that airport, that aircraft type, and that operator (with fallbacks). If you're part of a VA and someone is logged in as dispatch, they will get the request and can respond to it (something we'll need to work with VAs on, and that will naturally lag because none of them knew about it until Sat).

 

When will VA's get access to be involved/test this feature?
We from www.UAE-Virtual.com (31xx pilots, ~50 flights +/- per day) are really looking forward to this! 🙂

[Richard McDonald Woods 168]

Hi Timm,

My aim is solely to make the pilots' experiences much more immersive during routine en route flying. Nothing that I am proposing would affect the incentives to offer on-duty FIR control, perhaps even the opposite. Nor would it require pilots to sign in to CPDLC when they do not wish to.

Of course, this implementation would entirely depend upon how comprehensive will be the CPDLC functions offered by Kyle in GFO.

HTH

Edited June 14, 2018 by Richard McDonald Woods

[ahuimanu 50]

With the advances in AI, I've been wondering why either Lockheed Martin, or somebody else, doesn't do a full-blown new ATC/AI implementation.  In fact, I could see somebody developing this and charging a hefty monthly fee and it would be both worth it and sell like hotcakes.

I've tried to use VATSIM on an off for just about as long as it has existed.  It is only effective at planned events.  Beyond that, it is sporadic and uneven in quality of service (both the audio, the coverage, and otherwise). Pilot edge has a good twist, but I am not certain they can cover the globe.  However, I think voice recognition, AI processing, and computing power in general would be progressed enough by now where this could be done.  I am certain, however, that we are still not a big enough and reliable enough "market" to have this worth anyone's time.  The PDK seems like it would be something that such a system could latch to.

I chime in as, although the discussion is leaning towards how this could be integrated with VATSIM, I would think some AI-controlled and comprehensive system that is completely automated - voice, traffic, procedures - is within the realm of technical feasibility if not financial feasibility. 

I mean no ill will towards VATSIM with this, I just think an AI-powered traffic system is the way forward as comprehensive human coverage has proven infeasible after about two decades or so of VATSIM and IVAO.

Thanks.

[xTiMm_ 50]

9 minutes ago, ahuimanu said:

With the advances in AI, I've been wondering why either Lockheed Martin, or somebody else, doesn't do a full-blown new ATC/AI implementation.  In fact, I could see somebody developing this and charging a hefty monthly fee and it would be both worth it and sell like hotcakes. 

I've tried to use VATSIM on an off for just about as long as it has existed.  It is only effective at planned events.  Beyond that, it is sporadic and uneven in quality of service (both the audio, the coverage, and otherwise). Pilot edge has a good twist, but I am not certain they can cover the globe.  However, I think voice recognition, AI processing, and computing power in general would be progressed enough by now where this could be done.  I am certain, however, that we are still not a big enough and reliable enough "market" to have this worth anyone's time.  The PDK seems like it would be something that such a system could latch to. 

I chime in as, although the discussion is leaning towards how this could be integrated with VATSIM, I would think some AI-controlled and comprehensive system that is completely automated - voice, traffic, procedures - is within the realm of technical feasibility if not financial feasibility.  

I mean no ill will towards VATSIM with this, I just think an AI-powered traffic system is the way forward as comprehensive human coverage has proven infeasible after about two decades or so of VATSIM and IVAO.

Thanks.

You should consider to use either VATSIM or IVAO for the future as it is just better than any AI.
As much pilots are flying online, the more ATC you will find over the time. And as much we are online, the more fun it makes.

Concerning the quality of the voice on VATSIM - there will be a change coming. They are working on it.

[Bobsk8 12,543]

6 hours ago, xTiMm_ said:

You should consider to use either VATSIM or IVAO for the future as it is just better than any AI.
As much pilots are flying online, the more ATC you will find over the time. And as much we are online, the more fun it makes.

Concerning the quality of the voice on VATSIM - there will be a change coming. They are working on it.

I tried Vatsiim sim recently for a year. Most times, no controllers anywhere near me and no AI either. Felt like I was flying on the moon. Not my cup of tea. 

[Ephedrin 418]

On 6/13/2018 at 6:28 PM, scandinavian13 said:

All the same, I know we haven't thought of everything that could be cool in this system

 

Systems like this normally grow over time and will likely not be "complete" when they are released. There WILL be ideas and I almost bet that you will like this or that ^^

[Krister 51]

Bob, I would say it's the wrong approach to plan and start a flight and then be disappointed that there is no ATC coverage on VATSIM. What I do is either find a FIR that has a fly-in or  look on a map that shows ATC coverage on VATSIM and then pick a flight based on that. When I started flying on SATCO it opened up a whole new dimension to flightsimming!