The lowdown on ATC in FSX

[michal 44]

>With this>announcement ACES has actually diminished my faith in the>future advancement of the FS series. Shame on you, that

[Guest Water Mango]

With the budget Aces possess for the development of FSX, the excuse concerning the implementation of SID/STARS is a complete joke (I know many of you Microsoft CoolAide drinking fans won't agree). I'm also in the camp that'll stick with FS9 a little while longer as well. Outside of water the graphics are not that mind blowing (especially when you can't enjoy all the features unless you want a complete slide show) even with top of the line hardware. We don't have the hardware available on the market to fully enjoy this new sim (I know, there's that age old hope that things will be better upon release). I can fully enjoy FS9 as is right now. When you think about it FS9 is not that bad of a sim considering what I'm seeing in FSX...I concede to say that if FSX included an upgraded ATC system, realistic water landing dynamics, and scenery that looked better than what we already have with various add-on's applied, I would jump at getting FSX when it arrives later this year. If Vista and DX10 was out now I'd jump at getting the sim. Updated water and ground scenery that looks like Flight1's UT is all that's offered for a hefty hardware price tag (Oh, I forgot about the moving cars and flying birds). Lack of an attempt to update the ATC feature is the straw that broke the camel's back for me. The excuse I'm hearing for this is more of a slap in the face than anything. 3 years and this is what we get, wow...See you guys when Vista arrives... :-)

[Guest Water Mango]

"The fact is there are already very advanced ATC programs out there and at this point Microsoft would only play a catchup game."Please don't put a plural on a singular subject. RC4 is the only game in town that's really that advanced. It's actually a clunky alternative when you have the default ATC window popping up every 5 minutes because RC4 is unable to totally shut down the default ATC system (yes you can turn off the window but to fully replace the default, RC4 should be able to run alone not beside Aces' ATC system). RC4 has the tendency to run you into or have AI run into you on the taxiway among other things. I couldn't use RC4 in conjunction with FDC Live Cockpit (an add-on that gave me all my pilot to copilot checklist

[Guest drdaru1]

Maybe it's group denial. Spot on as they say across the pond.

[michal 44]

>Please don't put a plural on a singular subject. RC4 is the>only game in town that's really that advanced. Some would disagree with you. VOXATC is the other alternative. So I put "plural" on purpose, I won't take it back ;)>RC4 has the tendency>to run you into or have AI run into you on the taxiway among>other things. Therefore as I said MS should provide right "hooks" for others so some of the current ATC problems could be dealt with.>It's amazing many of you don't realize we have virtually>nothing new in FSX meaningful but graphics,Nothing 'amazing' about it. Just in case you forgot this is a "game" destined for the mass market of Best Buys, CompUSAs, Amazons and alike. They do things primarily for the enjoyment of the simulation-unsophisticated crowd whether you like it or not.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[Dillon 2,208]

"Therefore as I said MS should provide right "hooks" for others so some of the current ATC problems could be dealt with."I agree, if Aces is not going to do anything with ATC allow programs like RC4 or VOXATC to fully take over ATC operations and shut down the default system. Give RC4 full controll over AI aircraft/operations, etc...For the record, why are so many of you convinced the 'simulation-unsophisticated crowd' won't appreciate an immersive ATC environment to fly in???

[michal 44]

>For the record, why are so many of you convinced the>'simulation-unsophisticated crowd' won't appreciate an>immersive ATC environment to fly in??? For the record - anything that requires discipline and lots of initial effort is no-no for casual (which are 99% of) FS users. The same way something like PMDG's 747 or 767 LVL-D is anathema to them - having to study a manual for na hour just to figure how to start the engines - no way. I have seen quite a few of such users - they like to try something and get instant 'gratification' be it some bush flying or water landing. Yes, a minority among them is willing to perform slightly more complex tasks - small minority.Michael J.

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>Lack of an attempt to update the ATC feature is the straw that>broke the camel's back for me. The excuse I'm hearing for>this is more of a slap in the face than anything. 3 years and>this is what we get, wow...>>See you guys when Vista arrives... :-) So this means you'll stop wasting my time by posting in here about how you aren't going to buy the sim?

[Dillon 2,208]

O.K. let me get this straight,Press 1 to contact ATIS Press 2 to request alternate runway with frequencyPress 3 to be directed to holding patternSounds really complicated (wishlist menu used above). There's absolutely no reading required for ATC. You learn by using. I wonder how these same people turnover games like Half Life and Tomb Raider. I wonder how Sid Meyer's Civilizations, Rome Total War, and The Sims have become so popular if gamers were that brain dead...Speaking of 99%, you really are cutting this community short (we're only 1% of the market). :-lol I'm surprised Aces is even talking to us... It's a wonder DreamFleet, FeelThere, and Eaglesoft are making any money. Mike with 5822 posts to your credit I'm really surprised at you...I'd give this community 60% of the total FS market (and that's cutting it short). Anything lower than that Aces wouldn't bother talking to us... :-roll

[scott967 62]

>Does PMDG/LDS have to pay data providers for the data for>their aircraft? I imgaine that ACES has to pay a substantial>amount for the data used in FS, and if that data doesn't>include DPs/STARs, then it would probably cost even more to>get it. And if I remember correctly, PMDG/LDS don't provide>every DP/STAR in the world. The end-user is responsible for>finding them, or writing it themselves. >>I don't believe that Paul is calling everyone who wanted>better ATC/AI whiners. I think that nearly every FS user would>have liked to see it. However, I think that it's the people>that discard the reasons for why it wasn't improved>out-of-hand, and will remain hung-up on it, rather than look>at the other areas that HAVE been improved.Obviously there is a budget and the design team allocates it to features they think are important. What I am sceptical about, is the idea that adding ATC DP/STAR is "too hard" because of data. The data in LDS is from free US govt source (DAFIF), but the XML format they use is fairly straight forward, actually less complex than the ARINC 424 database that is used for the approach data in FS9. This is an area where, even if the team couldn't populate the database, they could provide the capability for 3rd parties. The main problem I see for the ATC facility (having no knowledge of how it is actually handled) is that DP/STAR have more complex altitude handling (and to some extent speed) than the FS9 ATC appears to implement.FS9 was way ahead of FS2k2 in how ATC/AI scheduled into and out of airports, but there still are maddening issues that AI and AFCAD designers would like to see improved.scott s..

[boshar 6]

Well this is the general FSX discussion forum and not the Microsoft Cheerleading team chat site. If somebody doesn't like the way FS-X is going to look then he's certainly entitled to voice his opinion here.Looking at the current free options for FS9 like simplefmc its a bit dissapointing thet FS-X won't have a simple buildin FMC like that. It would realy enhance the included airliners.Don't care that much about ATC though but it must be dissapointing for the guys that use it all the time to hear that there won't be any 'real' improvements for them.Just because it isnt important to you or me doesn't mean that it isn't important.

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>Well this is the general FSX discussion forum and not the>Microsoft Cheerleading team chat site. If somebody doesn't>like the way FS-X is going to look then he's certainly>entitled to voice his opinion here.>>Looking at the current free options for FS9 like simplefmc its>a bit dissapointing thet FS-X won't have a simple buildin FMC>like that. It would realy enhance the included airliners.>>Don't care that much about ATC though but it must be>dissapointing for the guys that use it all the time to hear>that there won't be any 'real' improvements for them.>>Just because it isnt important to you or me doesn't mean that>it isn't important.As a Unix/Linux system administrator and a guy who practically boycotted their games division after they let Allegiance slip, I'd hardly consider myself a MS Cheerleader. However, I've gotten terribly bored with the whole self-entitlement bit around here. Coming on to a forum for a game just to announce that you aren't buying it? What's the point? Am I supposed to stand up and say "YEAH! Chris Woodard is waiting on FSX because he's fed up that they didn't go out of their way to appease him personally, so I'm not gonna buy it right away either!" That's just ridiculous. There is no way that those kinds of posts are anything but a waste of time for people who are here to discuss the game. I mean, sure, the topic of his post (and I'm not just trying to single him out, in his words, it was the straw that broke the camel's back) is about the game, but that's akin to going into a botany forum to announce that you hate gardening because of all the dirt. His post, and the others like it, aren't constructive criticism, they aren't helpful or advice giving, they are snide and assuming and self-important, and I reacted the same way. If he or anyone else feels the need to be insulting or arrogant when voicing their opinion, they should fully expect to get a little jab thrown at them for it.

[frankla 45]

ahh..I'd be your friend Thomas!

[michal 44]

>O.K. let me get this straight,>>Press 1 to contact ATIS >Press 2 to request alternate runway with frequency>Press 3 to be directed to holding pattern>>Sounds really complicated (wishlist menu used above). There's>absolutely no reading required for ATC. There IS reading required. For a truly "immersive" ATC as you called it there is a steep learning curve - just look at some of the tutorials RC4 makes you go through. It is a complete fallacy that any advanced ATC is just press and go. Unless your "immersive" has a completely different meaning but then you are contradicting yourself - you want "press to go" while at the same time being "advanced" or "expanded". You really have to decide what you are talking about. But I guess Dillon I should have known that concept of 'realism' has often different meaning for you.Michael J.

[RFields5421 1]

The concept of realism has a different meaning for all of us.I find it simply amazing that many people talk about their "realistic" flying with PDMG or Level-D, yet they have no clue how to react if the weather changes and the landing runway shifts.Or they don't know what a transition is, or even how to find one on a real chart.Every real world pilot I know who flies jets with FMS systems tells me over and over again that the "Direct to" key is the most important and most used on their FMS. A controller is at some point going to tell them to cut across a corner and skip a waypoint on a STAR or add a waypoint for separation purposes.But going back to the learning curve - it is definitely there.Just look back on the main forum at the number of questions which come up when someone is given a "Circle to land" landing instruction.I'm personally am really happy that I can fly STAR/SID, approaches and transitions in FS2004 with the default ATC - with only a little extra work in the flight planning. It would be nice if the ATC would use the name of the STAR or the waypoint rather than a heading.That's one reason I like the two level ATC in FS2004 - novice and advanced - where you can make your ATC and approaches as compilicated or realistic, as you wish.