I could do without it out of the box, just leave a way for a third-party to change it later. Unfortunately, with the comments in my ATC thread from our Microsoft "liason," it does not appear that the code has changed much from fs2k4. But then again, that could just be me reading in between the lines.

>I could do without it out of the box, just leave a way for a>third-party to change it later. Unfortunately, with the>comments in my ATC thread from our Microsoft "liason," it does>not appear that the code has changed much from fs2k4. But>then again, that could just be me reading in between the>lines.If that's the case, it would seem self-evident that EditVoickpak will continue to work! So, where's the beef? ;)

My beef is that people seem to be letting Microsoft off the hook an being complacent about improving the sim. Of course EditVoicepak will work in FSX, as long as there is a developer alive, and an SDK he can read. But will it give us a way to hear Colgan Ninety-Nine-Fourty-Six? That remains to be seen. There's plenty of beef here, if you want more, I have a list, and ATC is at the top of it.

It is basically difference between Noth America and rest of the world.Flight 4444 will be:1. "fourty four-fourty four" in US (Canada as well I think).2. "four four four four" everyehere else.

>My beef is that people seem to be letting Microsoft off the>hook an being complacent about improving the sim. Of course>EditVoicepak will work in FSX, as long as there is a developer>alive, and an SDK he can read. But will it give us a way to>hear Colgan Ninety-Nine-Fourty-Six? That remains to be seen. >There's plenty of beef here, if you want more, I have a list,>and ATC is at the top of it.Perhaps my quoting style allowed too much ambiquity to remain. I was asking "where's the beef" regarding this single statement:"I could do without it out of the box, just leave a way for a third-party to change it later."So, my suggestion that since Edit Voicepack is self-evidently still a viable option, you could simply "...do without it..." ;)As for "letting Microsoft off the hook," that's far from an accurate assesment. You would be astonished at how closely their feet are held to the fire by some folks both through email and in person... :-lol On the other hand, in public the aphorism regarding not "biting the hand that feeds you" is entirely appropriate! :-bigangel

You can find the recommended procedures for call signs and flight numbers (for use in the U.S.) in the Aeronautical Information Manual 4-2-4 (http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0402.html#4-2-4) and in section 2-4-20, "AIRCRAFT IDENTIFICATION" of "Air Traffic Control" (FAA Order 7110.65R), available at: http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp2/atc0204.html#2-4-20.As has been explained numerous times elsewhere, creating every possible combination of "group form" and individual numbers would be extremely time-consuming and problematic, as the following excerpt from "Air Traffic Control" makes clear:2. Air carrier and other civil aircraft having FAA authorized call signs. State the call sign followed by the flight number in group form.NOTE-"Group form" is the pronunciation of a series of numbers as the whole number, or pairs of numbers they represent rather than pronouncing each separate digit. The use of group form may, however, be negated by four-digit identifiers or the placement of zeros in the identifier.EXAMPLE-"American Fifty-Two.""Delta One Hundred.""Eastern Metro One Ten.""General Motors Thirty Fifteen.""United One Zero One.""Delta Zero One Zero.""TWA Ten Zero Four."NOTE-Air carrier and other civil aircraft having FAA authorized call signs may be pronounced using single digits if necessary for clarity.EXAMPLE-"United Five One Seven.""United Five Seven Zero."

Time-consuming and problematic? Explain... you can't make an accusation like that without fact.As far as I know, there are lots and lots of .wav or .mp3 (i forgot the format) files that are recorded. I don't think it would be a stretch to record from "ten" to "ninety-nine" and just join 2 files to make a "Nine-Hundred" or anything like that."Fifty-two-fourteen" - 2 files.Moreover, I think some of the ATC phrases already heard have more than 1 file. In fact, remember the fight about the "wake turbulence" wav files? Why weren't they implemented, etc...You can't say that it would be etime-consuming and problematic without stating the facts that would lead to that "opinion."

You can get a good, albeit general, sense of the complexity involved in producing ATC audio for Flight Simulator by reading the article "Assembled Voices: Making ATC Talk" at http://www.fsinsider.com/articles/assembled_voices.htm.Given the number of voices included in the ATC system in Flight Simulator to provide a sense of the variety heard on real radios, each change to the system requires an immense amount of work, involving design, development, production, testing, and localization.As the examples that I provided from "Air Traffic Control" illustrate, there is no single standard for properly pronouncing airline call signs. The "group form" works in many, perhaps most, cases, but exceptions are allowed, even encouraged, for clarity and safety. Developing and testing algorithms to mimic how real controllers make such decisions on the fly would be complex and time-consuming. The question is whether doing so is the best use of the team's time and resources and how much value adding that "feature" is worth to most users versus working on other improvements and new features.A similar situation obtains in Flight Simulator with regard to ATIS and AWOS/ASOS audio. The simulation pronounces airport identifiers letter-by-letter using the ICAO alphabet. In the real world (in the U.S., at least), those broadcasts typically include the facility name, prounced as a name. That compromise can be a little irritating to those of us who use those systems every day, but it's hardly worth bumping up one's BP over.Ideally, every feature of a simulation would reproduce the corresponding elements of the real world in every detail. But that level of verisimilitude isn't always practical--or even desirable--as has been explained in many threads here at Avsim and other venues dedicated to Flight Simulator.P.S.: "Accusation" is a loaded word. It means:1 : the act of accusing : the state or fact of being accused2 : a charge of wrongdoingPerhaps you meant "assertion" or "declaration"?

No, I meant every word I wrote.The time to record from ten to ninety-nine would be negligable over 3 years.In this argument, I'm not asking for a complete algorithm to mimic the decision making process. I'm asking that when I select my PMDG 747, I want to hear "KLM Eighty-Nine Heavy" as the callsign. And to further that, say I used "KLM Six-Sixty-Two;" I don't think it would be hard to make it Six-Sixty-Two instead of Six Hundred Sixty-Two. We already have an algorithm for deciding between the long civil -- Cessna 123-Echo-Bravo -- and the short civil -- Cessna 3-Echo-Bravo.Your "A similar situation obtains in Flight Simulator with regard to ATIS and AWOS/ASOS audio. The simulation pronounces airport identifiers letter-by-letter using the ICAO alphabet. In the real world (in the U.S., at least), those broadcasts typically include the facility name, prounced as a name. That compromise can be a little irritating to those of us who use those systems every day, but it's hardly worth bumping up one's BP over." argument has already been solved with EditVoicepack.Thank you.

I forgot to comment on this. I would argue that the 'regionalization' of Flight Sim does begin with this version, and as such, the ATC should be included in that.

>A similar situation obtains in Flight Simulator with regard to>ATIS and AWOS/ASOS audio. The simulation pronounces airport>identifiers letter-by-letter using the ICAO alphabet. In the>real world (in the U.S., at least), those broadcasts typically>include the facility name, prounced as a name. That compromise>can be a little irritating to those of us who use those>systems every day, but it's hardly worth bumping up one's BP>over.FYI, as I understand it, FS9 only uses the ICAO for ATIS messages when it doesn't know what phrase is associated with that ICAO. KSEA ATIS in FS9 says "Seattle airport information..." If a particular airport you frequent doesn't have it's name reported in ATIS, you could use EditVoicePack to fix that by making an ICAO entry. I did that for two fictional airports I added, and I did it for Ketchikan International airport too. AWOS/ASOS I'm not so familliar with, but I imagine they work the same way."Let me help you out. You're cleared to taxi any way you can to any runway you see."

The time to record from ten to ninety-nine would be negligable over 3 years.Most of those numbers are already in FS.Recording is not the issue.Much of sounds the ATC says are mandated and defined by control codes we use to tell the sim what we want to hear.Pray tell me how the computer will know that:atc_airline=KLMatc_flight_number=89is "KLM Eighty-Nine Heavy" and not "KLM Eight Nine Heavy"Or do you wish to force the entire community of Flightsimmers world wide to adapt to your preferences.The answer - if there is one - would be in separate voice packs - aka EditVoice Pack's ICAO and NA system.Microsoft could possibly redo a separate alternative voice pack and the code structure to support calling ALL numbers as two digit or three digit numbers.Of course the issue then becomes how does the computer know the difference between:"American Thirty-one"and "Flight level thirty-one"

The simulation pronounces airport identifiers letter-by-letter using the ICAO alphabet. Most of my changes submitted and approved by EditVoicePack are to add airport names in place of the phonetic ICAO/ airport code.Lar's web site has a clear explaination on how to make that change.Though it is frustrating to find a way to create the correct sound sometimes.

here's an idea...if airport is us/canada = klm eighty-nine heavyif airport is not us/canada = klm eight nine heavythat was hard wasn't it?

Take off airport?Landing airport?Physical user aircraft location?Add another layer and series of function calls / threads to the terrain engine before each voice call?You will have to significantly increase the code to evaluate the number, location and which number to play.Now the way I would attack it is to have two voice pack files - and the user select which to use at startup of FS.The program would always "think" of the flight number as "KLM Eighty-Nine" - however if the non-US voice pack was selected - the sound file played would be "Eight Nine"