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.I would have liked to see the default ATC improved, as well. However, with viable alternatives like Radar Contact out there, I can live with it as it is.

>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.I don't get it. Since these people who wanted ATC improved and didn't get it voice their opinions. They should just move on to the other 'improvements' in the sim that they didn't care for in the first place?

I'm not saying that people shouldn't voice their opinions. Nothing would get changed, otherwise. What I am saying is that this is a done deal. ATC is not getting improved. So we can either constantly lament about it, or we can move on. Personaly, I'm disappointed that ATC wasn't improved on. However, as a GA flyer, I am thrilled with the new 'living world' features in the sim, as I feel that they will significantly improve VFR immersion. However, I can also see where those who live and die by ATC could justify skipping this release enitrely. Neither opinion is 'right' or 'wrong', just different. Just like how if ATC had received a major facelift this time, people would be here lamenting the lack of eye candy improvement. No one can satisfy everyone, everytime.

>I don't get it. ..>in the sim that they didn't care>for in the first place?:-hmmmThey didn't care for better water, better ground textures, better skies, etc. Sort of like "give me ATC or give me nothing". Indeed with this sort of attitude I don't think they should be using FS at all. Anyone with reasonable mind for whom ATC is so dear to their hearts would have long ago realized they would be much better off with Vatsim, Radar Contact or Voxatc. So yeah, I do get it. ;)Michael J.

Please. Go back and read it again...

>They want to make a profit?!?!? Say it ain't so! :-)I know. Crazy talk, isn't it?

<>Actually I'd encourage people to keep talking. It's always better to try and understand all the issue better rather than taking a "well, I can't do anything about it" attitude.

So, I think, along the lines of what you are saying, Mike, I'll put my voice in, too.I'm fine with the accents we have, but, being an American, I'd say this doesn't weigh too much as a data point.But, I do tend to fly mostly single player. I don't have enough time to get involved with online play. I get an hour here, a half hour here, to really go flying, so it's not worth it to go online for me. Plus, as my kids say "Thomas .... has no friends!" :-). Having 7 kids, 5 still at home and in sports doesn't leave much time for outside play. I'd have to invest a lot more time to make this feasible, not to mention all the setup time it will take me to get my system working properly. I spent a couple hours trying to get Squawkbox to work and couldn't. My partner doesn't give me access to change anything in the network setup here at the house (her business depends on it 24 hours a day) so I didn't investigate much further.I have to admit my current computer isn't strong enough to run AI either. But if it could, I would really like to see lots of AI controlled by ATC around me, and not have to go around all the time on final.I would like to see more discussion about the costs involved for MS in terms of SIDS and STARS. The argument that PMDG and LDS do it, why can't MS does seem to hold some water, and I'd like to understand where the holes in that argument are (if any)?Thanks for listening,Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

Problem is Mike, we've pretty much exhausted a lot of the possibilities of where we can go right now on ATC. Over the past few months, we've dedicated a lot of time and effort to finding out just what's involved in dealing with the ATC problems, and what people want out of it. We're pretty much at an impasse at this point, since we don't have the information yet to judge our options. Personally, I'm hoping that the SDK will have some good tools and information to begin dissecting the AI traffic file and scheduling arrivals and departures, or at maybe even better control over the runway scheduling...allowing for better overload traffic onto parallel runways, but we just don't know yet if the SDK will allow us to do that. Without a tool to really dive into the traffic, we'll have to hope that some brilliant sim addict decides to take up the ATC gauntlet and come up with a solution that moves us forward...it's been done before and hopefully FSX will provide new opportunities.I'd like to add my voice to those who would prefer an AI ATC solution. I know what the difficulties involved in it are, and I know just how much work is involved in it. But unless the online community really takes off with FSX, VATSIM and the like will continue to have the same difficulties they have now...underpopulation, a convoluted system to join, and a steep learning curve (even for FS!) I hope that the Shared Skies concept works well and turns us into a true online community, but there will always be people who, for whatever reason, would rather fly an AI populated sky. I hope that Flight Simulator will continue to provide that opportunity.But, I'm off-topic there. The point is that we've chewed over all the information we have on ATC. All we can do now is repeat old arguments. Now if ACES wanted to tell us something about the SDK for ATC... :-lol

>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.... I added this comment to my blog post: "These are good points, and as I mentioned we are not going to abandon the single player experience for people that want a solo experience. I suspect that some users wouldn't buy the product at all if it required on-line interaction. What is important about this discussion is that we are having it, and that the ATC system is difficult and expensive to maintain (much less significantly improve)."For an on-line solution to work we would have to reach some kind of critical mass so that the session(s) would have the level of activity to make it interesting. I wouldn't expect that to happen overnight. I also wouldn't expect the ATC system to be abandoned overnight either.I was just chatting about this thread with our developer that coded the ATC system. He expressed that he would like to see us develop voice recognition for ATC. I'm sure I will now read a post that says the next FS will have voice regnition in ATC because it was mentioned in passing here. We will not easily be able to have a dialog about ideas and features, if what we say is taken out of context or taken literally or as hard facts when posing hypothetical scenarios.Don't read into my blog post where I say that I question how long the ATC system will stay around as a blanket statement about how the entire team feels or what will actually happen. We will explore many different options and opinions (including those posted on forums like this one) and then make decisions.As for my comment about whiners and M$, it didn't take long to manifest... :)

Thanks for your up date :)

I should probably add one more thing here. I don't see those of you that are passionately expressing what you do and don't like as whiners. That moniker I reserve for those that make assumptions we are dishonest, greedy, and closed-minded or that simply assume the negative without a discussion or weighing of the facts.The vast majority of posts I've read and the comments I've received on my blog are not from whiners.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment to me in FS2004, and may be so in FSX is the "dumbded down" use of approaches in VMC.In VMC - the approach assigned is (1) ILS or (2) visual. Other approaches for the airport / runway are not assigned by default.Now based upon the questions we see when someone is told "Circle to land" - I'd have to agree that's a good decision for the USER aircraft.But under IMC, the AI aircraft use other approach types. Watching an Alaska Airlines B737 make a GPS approach to PADU, cross over the NDB and execute a perfect 240 degree descending turn to land is beautiful.It's really sad that it has to be IMC for that approach to be used by the AI aircraft - because under VMC the aircraft fly through mountains on final for a visual approach for either runway.We can make AI aircraft follow the more complex approach procedures in VMC by renaming the approach an ILS approach. We can even add waypoints and turn an AI aircraft almost 180 degrees with this method to avoid terrain.I just really wish that AI aircraft could / would follow alternate published approaches if an ILS approach is not available in VMC - especially the offset Localizer and LDA approaches. They are offset for a reason.They do it so well in IMC.

I don't care much about accents or SIDS/STARS and all that stuff. I don't generally file IFR flight plans in FS9, regardless of the weather.I'd be more interested in improvements to the mechanics of ATC. In otherwords, traffic control, on the ground and in the air. I imagine you guys have heard enough about aircraft seperation so I won't go into that.Haven't seen as much of an issue with ground traffic control as some appear to, but I did recently see ATC causing 2 nose to nose encounters at the same time. (One of the four aircraft involved being mine.) Granted, at that airport the taxi options were limited, but I think a smarter ATC could have prevented them. Not entirely sure how FS9 chooses taxiway routes, but it seems like it chooses the shortest route between the two points, even if that same route is being used by aircraft going in the opposite direction.And, in my opinion, updating taxi instructions would have been nice. I would find it hard to believe that real world ATC would tell a 747 that just left the runway to turn 360 on the narrow taxiway and cross the runway to get to it's gate. If taxiway instructions (or even just the progressive taxi line) were able to update themselves, I think that would be nice.I'm not going to try and say that those are trivial things to do, because of course I don't know how hard they would be. And frankly we don't have the SDK yet so it's hard to tell what improvements are there, or what 3rd party vendors will be able to do. I'll take what I can get and work with it. Though I dearly hope we'll get a decent replacement for AFCAD2 somehow.But what I really think of, and miss, when the subject of ATC enhancements comes up, are some of the little extras that Flight Unlimited II had. Can't tell you how many times I've buzzed KSFO's tower just to hear the guy say "Thanks for making me spill my coffee, you can leave my pattern now." :) And the statement in my sig is one I heard far too many times in FUII."Let me help you out. You're cleared to taxi any way you can to any runway you see."