Yea, thanks Bill... :-roll

Chris,there's a good chance Bill does have a pretty good idea what's happening as regards SDK, he works for Eaglesoft who have been involved fairly closely with FSX and the ACES team.

John I don't doubt Bill knows more than many of us but like 'Tdragger' mention, he shouldn

Hi allIt's nice to see Reggie Fields and Jim Vile participate in this forum. I remember these gentlemen's participations in another forum where they shared all their insiders' information on how the facility xml really works.At that time I wasn't pleased with the 'star-technique' approach of controlling runway usage and began looking into it.Since 6 months I have a complete programming project ready that communicates with the fs9 atc system. I can read weather data for an airport, ai traffic data and control which runways are active. I can even change active runways without reloading. All this through my own findings without the help of any fsuipc that puts limitations. Thanks to this I began writing a module that controls active runways based on weather, traffic load, plane requesting clearance (ie direct alle terminal x traffic to rwy y).Sadly I don't seem to have enough spare time to finish it. If I continue to work at this current rate it might be finished by the time fs2006 arrives, what a bummer: I would have to spend weeks rewriting the code due to all the differences in the new version. (but in a way I'm pleased that didnt change too much about the atc in the new version :D)The project had been dead for 6 months before I began working on it again this summer. I can get it to work on my own computer if I want and code everything into it, but felt it was a quite exotic new technology (I had to think really deep at times to get all the asm code right) that I should share it with the community. Right now I'm developing an editor for the airport configuration files if that's how you want to call it. Then it will need to be tested extensively.And finally I would like to add one note on the original post in this thread. Yes, everyone would greatly benefit if Aces would add the ATC to the SDK information. If more functions in the DLL's had been documented by the FS9 SDK, my program would have been released last year, I think that proves it.Joris

Amen. You've spoken very well here. Thank you for at least speaking an opinion of mine as well.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the MS ATC logic between the enroute and the final approach phase.My experience as a real world CFI-CFII is the following:a) In terminal areas that benefit from radar service, ATC will vector you from your last point to a position outside of the final approach fix within a 30 intercept angle of the final approach course at the minimum altitude for that area. At this point ATC will issue a clearance for conducting the approach and instruct you to contact tower, or at airports without an operating control tower, ask you to cancel IFR on the ground or in the air and approve frequency change to the common traffic advisory frequency. This is modeled correctly in FS9.During vectoring ATC will tell you to expect a particular approach. If you are flying a jet you can plunk the appropriate runway into the FMS. If you are flying a GA aircraft with a fancy GPS, you select the approach and active it specifying vectors. If you are flying without the benefit of the GPS, you simply fly the vectors and altitudes assigned. This is also correctly modeled in FS9.:( In terminal areas that do not benefit from radar service, ATC will clear you for the approach outside of the final approach fix (usually after passing the initial approach point), and it is the pilot's responsibility to read the plate and fly the procedure, including the course reversal if necessary, as charted. I don't know how to program the FMS to fly a procedure turn in a jet; however, panel mounted GPS units in GA aircraft will fly a procedure turn for you if it's in the database. Again, this is correctly modeled in FS9.Departure procedures (for example, 'Long Island 3') do not appear to be in the MS ATC database. Personally I don't think the exclusion of these SIDS are that bad since in real life these procedures serve only to simplify clearances and you usually start getting vectors once airborne. I appreciate the interest in these departure procudures and I agree it would be nice to have the MS ATC include these in the database.In summary though the transition from enroute to approach mimics real life quite nicely, from my own observation and experience.

I wasn't saying I don't agree, just pointing out that he knows a bit more than most of us. I personally would like to see ATC improved massively, but even looking around at other 'games' etc. Online is being pushed in our faces, just look at games like BF2, where even to play single player battles you still have to sign in online, the same goes for a number of other games. If you want to unlock stuff you need to be 'online'. I don't like it at all, for my money I would like to just get home from work, choose my route, fire up FS, FSHS and Activesky 6 and fly. I don't want to be online all the time, I don't think I'd click with a real person in ATC or in the CP's seat the way I do with my AI Co-pilot. It's too easy to miss something that's been said online, whereas offline you can miss it and just wait for the ATC to repeat.I'm the first to admit I use RC4 now and love it, but would like some major improvement in default ATC. I'd like to see a bit more movement especially in the handling of AI, not sitting by the runway as I did once for 45 minutes while aircraft came and went at SFO, they need to clear the runway quickly. AI needs to be able to handle the volume you see at places like LHR, where a plane lands every 40 seconds. Let's face it if you're 40 seconds behind AI at the moment you can forget landing. You need to be a good minute and a half or more behind. I think I worked it out to around 8 miles behind an AI plane to land after him w/out a go around.

>Since 6 months I have a complete programming project ready>that communicates with the fs9 atc system. I can read weather>data for an airport, ai traffic data and control which runways>are active. I can even change active runways without>reloading. All this through my own findings without the help>of any fsuipc that puts limitations. Thanks to this I began>writing a module that controls active runways based on>weather, traffic load, plane requesting clearance (ie direct>alle terminal x traffic to rwy y).:-eek So we don't need the star technique, and multiple parallels are open?

I generally agree. But this is NOT what folks here want to hear, they want confirmation that things are BAD ;)Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

>Bill I love your work with Eaglesoft and I'm a big fan of what>you do. Your one of the most helpful and knowledgeable guys>around here. Hopefully we can put all this behind us and be>friends after FSX hits the streets... :-smoochThanks, Chris. I don't have any problem with anyone bringing up issues or problems that they feel should be (or should have been) addressed.There are however, ways to make one's points without lengthy diatribes that barely stop short of questioning the competence and/or parentage of the developers... ;)Note that I'm not implying that you personally have done so, but there are unfortunately some who have...We are - after all - each passionate about our own areas of interest, that's part of the human condition. Whatever I write here (and elsewhere) is based on my own personal opinions, observations, conclusions, and - yes - even speculations! I do not speak for anyone else, real or imaginary... :-beerchug

Hi Dillon,Don,t forget that Aces are expecting us all to be flying 'on-line' with multiplayer?In other words, it means that they can re-hash the FS9 ATC again to save money for 'Bill'.

A healthy debate is always good as it can in many situations prompt a different outcome... :-)