The ATC works fine like it is in FS2004. If i'd wish for one improvement it would be an option to get clearance for another runway than the active. In airports like Tel Aviv and Innbruck it's hard to land on some of the non-ILS runways on a cloudy and foggy day. An option to get priority landing on another (ILS) runway than the active would be great. It feels a little rude to cancel IFR, and ignore the ATC to get the plane down, lol.

Just looking at the voice issue- Speech Synthesis. It's not perfect, but there are many ATIS that use it now (KBOS I KNOW of) as opposed to having the controllers record the loop.I'm not expceting voice recognition just yet (we all know it's buggy, too many variables, even after properly training the system)But you could accent voices, alter cadence (maybe even user selecteable)I'd just like to se better AI Atc logic- Some of us cannot commit to 4 contiguous hours to fly from X-Y. we need to pause and even come back a day later to finish a flight. Default ATC is there.Arrival vectors are my pet peeve. Go for the instrument approach in a jet, and you go way out of approaches airspace for arrival- Over MDT for Philly, Over PVD for Boston etc.Go for the Visual (regardless of conditions) and you get vectored to the ILS about 10 miles out at a good intercept angle and altitue. Plus there's too many turns to zigzag on the vectors. No intelligence of speed- no slow to 200 for spacing stuff. Just repeated 10-20 degree turns to bracket a courseline.The runway use logic is too simple. Fine for ATL and LAX, but awful for ORD and Boston with their crossing runways and LAHSO. And an inability to define one way taxi routes to eliminate head to head pileups.However, I can apprecaite the fact that ACES needs to put their money/time into their best ROI, which is honestly more visual than the backend.Tim

Call it melodramatic if you want but it was just my heartfelt reaction to this current line of thinking by the ACES team. Like I said, I've been a long, long time fan of FS and this questioning of whether ATC is worth future development effort was quite surprising to me. I guess that's the downside, of this new openness, you may be shocked by what you hear from time to time. Point is, I'm really disappointed that they've began to question the existence of ATC in future additions of FS. It's a BIG feature for me and I'd just assumed I'd be made better and better with each release not left behind on the cutting room floor, indefinitely. :-(I'll work on keeping the melodrama to a minimum in the future. :-)-Thad

Actually the PVD VOR is the charted STAR waypoint for jet aircraft arriving from the south and west for landings at KBOS from the south. You should be crossing PVD at 11,000 at 250 knots to land on Rwy 4, also 11,000 for landings on 9 or 33.You would be vectored to the final intercept course after crossing the INNDY intersection.

Michael maybe your right, your version of 'immersive' and my version are two totally different things. I feel if the various call outs are presented on the screen it's not that hard to figure out. I don't care how complicated Aces made it. It get's complicated when you have to remember how to ask for things in a real aircraft (or maybe this new online feature Aces is pushing). I think most including myself weren't asking for a RC4 ATC environment but rather an updated ATC system that covered more of the basics. Case in point you can't fly past 250kts below 10,000ft, SID/STARS are very much apart of basic airliner operations or you'll end up flying into a mountain in areas with varying levels of terrain, and Holding patterns can be a common occurrence at busy airports in bad weather like the KATL area.Let the payware guys handle the more complicated stuff and like I mentioned before give the payware guys a little more flexibility to run their software free of the default system. I really don't feel live ATC will fully catch on in the way Aces seems to feel it will. If our community is so small and only (you said 1% of the market), who's going to man all those ATC areas at all hours of the night in varying locations around the world???

>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 Dillon... Three words: Become A Developer...Then, and only then will you learn just how statistically insignificant "this community" is when compared against total sales of Flight Simulator... ;)The only "saving grace" is that when viewed in isolation, "this community" is indeed large enough to support third-party development, but "we developers" - as do ACES - wish to "grow the market."

There have obviously been some changes to the AFD system (Taxi to fuel) so there may be more changes we're not aware of, and might not find out about till we can check out the SDK. There is a way in FS9 to make different taxiway paths for takeoff and landing (and thus flow-through parking) but doing that for a land airport would be a real mess. Even for a small airport. Frankly I hope one-way taxiways will be an option in FSX."Let me help you out. You're cleared to taxi any way you can to any runway you see."

There are no arrivals to rwy 9. Ever.IRL, sure it works like that :) Even arrivals to 22 or 27 come of of INNDY. My point being that one gets silly vectors when desceneded to GS intercept altitudes- far outside of the arrival airports airspace.

That FS clears an aircraft to the GS altitude and transfers it to the tower whenever it intersects the extended centerline is a real stupid idea.I'm firmly convinced the program doesn't "know" where the aircraft is located, only that it is on the approach.The next trigger appears to be at about 5 nm from the touchdown point when the plane is cleared to land.Some times it really looks like the various phases of flight are all controlled by different sections of the program - and the people writing the programs never talked to each other about handoffs.

Hey guys.....This is the virtual world not the real world. In the real world aircraft take off on the wrong unlighted runway.Lets be happy with what we have developed I am sure you smart guys out there will figure sum-thing out in the next year so chill and wait for the...yikes beta!?....or maybe wait for one more month, then let our collective genius work...peace y'allbyegd

>This is the virtual world not the real world. In the real>world aircraft take off on the wrong unlighted runway.Ouch that was harsh

>>>This is the virtual world not the real world. In the real>>world aircraft take off on the wrong unlighted runway.>>Ouch that was harshPerhaps not. Example this morning's crash of Comair Flight 5191 Early reports indicate pilot used rwy 26 (3,500') instead of rwy 22...

>I implore you to reconsider this decision.>>Please don

I think one thing is that online flying through FSX will be much more intimate, with the smaller sessions.Although I'm sure there will be 30 programs created that you have to run to connect to a larger service like VATSIM, the out of the box online experience will be what many of the non-enthusiast crowd end up going through.

>>>>>This is the virtual world not the real world. In the real>>>world aircraft take off on the wrong unlighted runway.>>>>Ouch that was harsh>>Perhaps not. Example this morning's crash of Comair Flight>5191 Early reports indicate pilot used rwy 26 (3,500')>instead of rwy 22...>I think that was exactly why he thought that it was harsh.Granted it's easy for me to sit on a high horse and say "I don't get how a pilot could make such a mistake" when I have no real world experience whatsoever.But in my simulated experience I can't imagine how this can happen. I have seen the charts for the airport and it's beyond me how you can mistake the 26 for the 22.