An informative post from Paul on ATC and FSX.http://blogs.technet.com/p-12c_pilot/archi.../24/449488.aspxLooks like online ATC is the future, which is probably a good idea, anyways. If only VATSIM and IVAO would get their acts togeter and merge.:-grr

I am thinking, VATSIM should encourage to converge all the aircrafts and controllers to two close by geographic area... rather than be diluted.I mean, if there is 1 controller in Sydney and another in Japan and 1 in San fran and another in Boston, I would think it be better to heard them into two area... say Boston and San fran or Tokyo and Sydney. Rotate the geographic area by the day of the week or date or something. So all traffic can be funneled to this small area.Don't know how feasable this is, but I am thinking, this may solve the issue of "sparseness" of VATSIM.Manny

Excellent blog post by Paul. Usually, when these guys discuss an issue that the community brings up, they bring up very good points and shed a lot of light on the intricacies of catering to different users. As far as online ATC goes, I have used it a couple times, and my biggest beef (as well as most people's) is the sparse controller areas. Sure, LAX and SFO may have controllers, but I don't really want to do LAX-SFO. It's obviously not an easy problem to solve and its based entirely on user interest, but it certainly would be more appealing if there were more controllers.

To be honest, I like the default ATC, sure there's room for improvements, but I would think its fairly easy for new users to get used to. I tend to use it when taking a plane up for a 'joy ride', but when I take up the PMDG birds, I switch to RC4 for that extra realism.I have one gripe with the ATC in FSX, I don't like the new window, for me its too in you face, too bulky and distracting. I prefered the FS9 window, its a nice size and doesn't distract you with differing colours.

>I have one gripe with the ATC in FSX, I don't like the new>window, for me its too in you face, too bulky and distracting.>I prefered the FS9 window, its a nice size and doesn't>distract you with differing colours.>>It's a little inconvenient, but the window is easily resized....and stays that way for the balance of the session. (drag the corners)

The only problem I have with flying online is that you won't have the busy skies and realistic air traffic that AI planes can provide.So MS better have some improvement in the ATC system, such as not clearing a plane for ILS and down to 2,500 ft. 30 miles from the airport. Other things I can understand like not being able to have accents or making the system talk more smoothly. But realistic instructions should at least be provided.Now, if FSX could implement AI traffic into an online ATC environment (with the ability to cancel out an AI flight, should their be someone flying that flight), would be excellent

hahah tough luck on that one... They didn't do anything with atc this version... What's funny is that he's mentioning ending atc as a feature altogether in favor of online atc... ok not funny, scary. I want better atc with all the traffic as well, but they just can't get their you-know-whats and their heads wired together to make this happen. It's sad to see them talking about removing ATC, it has so much potential.They've already said that ai traffic and online atc together would be 'to great a strain' so we're s.o.l. on this one.

Hopefully some new API hooks are there for third parties to tackle some of the things that Paul mentions.For example, the flight plan in FS9 was pretty much static. So if you wanted to write an FMS, you would have to be willing to write your own autopilot as well.There was also no (documented) way to steer AI traffic in FS9. If this could be hooked, it would be possible for 3rd party to better enhance ATC and add things like AI that follows SIDS/STARS.

Indeed. I believe that the new Simconnect API is one of the best features of the new sim, although how great it will be is dependent on the add-on developers.For example, if simconnect could allow an add-on such as Radar Contact to issue ground commands to AI traffic and provide a better ground handling experience, one of the (IMO) major drawbacks to it would be eliminated. Then, all we'd need would be an EditVoicePack for it, and we'd be set.

You can resize the window or drag it to another monitor in both FS9 and FSX.Regards, Carlos

Indeed scary, I frankly am sort of a loner in my flight sim hobby and don't fly online. I love the AI traffic it's one of the things that makes it realistc. So you have to give it up just to talk to a human and land at an empty airport. Also, having to depend on other people just to fly? Are there people tending ATC at 3 o'clock in the morning in the US? I'd rather stick to artificial intelligence atc which is open and available 24 hours a day when I wan't to fly. Let's face it, Microsoft just taking the easy way out and just didn't wan't to devote manpower to these areas as the would lose some profits.Regards, Carlos

>Let's face it, Microsoft just taking the easy way out and just didn't wan't to devote manpower to these areas as the would lose some profits.shhhhhh, you can't say that here... you saw that tdragger almost put simflight's collective nuts in a vice for dissenting against flight sim xeverything is good... everything is good... everything is good...

"Let's face it, Microsoft just taking the easy way out and just didn't wan't to devote manpower to these areas as the would lose some profits."They want to make a profit?!?!? Say it ain't so! :-)I don't see them dumping ATC in single-player mode. I don't particularly like flying online, either. That being said, it the simconnect API allows utilities like RC to exert greater control over AI traffic and ground handling of A/C, then I can live with that.

Yeah..I agree.Now, we can't fly by ourselves.... (i.e. if they remove the ATC functions) and force us to fly with others.... Like I can find people I want to fly with at the time and place I want to fly!99% of the time, I don't want to fly with others. Now , is that so wrong?:)Manny

It's too bad he seemed to be calling those who wanted better ATC/AI as "whiners". Says SIDs/STARS is too much data (same with more voice wavs). Somehow PMDG/LDS manage to provide for SIDs/STARs. In LDS, it's already in an XML file. Could be appended to the approach data already in FS9. The same selection logic that provides for runway/approach could be extended to SID/STAR. But unfortunately (IMHO) they decided to push users to online ATC.If this be whining, then make the most of it.scott s..