I don't understand....

[MD83 1]

No holding patterns? :(So, the mad dashes to the active runway are here to stay. Out-dragging the AI planes on final is an art in itself :-lol

[Guest dwojdylo]

> In other words, we've reached the point of diminishing returns--at>least for now. Of course that could change with time, based on>the makeup of Flight Sim's customer base.>Are you suggesting that there is little interest in AI?

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>> In other words, we've reached the point of diminishing>returns--at>>least for now. Of course that could change with time, based>on>>the makeup of Flight Sim's customer base.>>>>Are you suggesting that there is little interest in AI? Sounded to me that he was saying that their work over time on AI/ATC is proportional to the interest in it.Although, to the thread in general, I'm really not sure what's wrong with the AI. I've never had any problems with it. I know the AI does get jammed up some at larger airports, but I never really turn it up to that level because I get some pretty serious lag when I do.Hopefully my new system will cure that.

[MarkRey 16]

As a 'lonely' fmc driver, I fully understand ACES' attention to multiplayer - it's more in line with what most folks want to see and tdragger makes the point that it does allow vastly more than coded ATC can feasibly provide at this time. It may not fit me right now but it does sound like a lot of enjoyment.My hope is that there'll be continued 3rd party AFCAD and realworld AI enhancement (and smoothing) in FSX so my highly modified insanely dense AI can be recreated to keep me company on my heavy iron journeys. I'll just continue landing on the buggers if they get in my way :) regards,MarkXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1024mb/X700pro256

[Guest waltch]

I can fully agree with some statements made here.If MS really did not do anything about the points 1-7 mentioned in the original posting, then they in fact ignore completely what has been done for FS2004 (and FS2002 already) in very active AI-groups like PAI and many others. We need again Lee Swordy to become active.I am also disappointed about FSX in this respect.Walter

[RFields5421 1]

Okay this has been here a while:(1) Outside of clearance the words SID or STAR is almost never mentioned by ATC. Even when changing an inbound aircraft to an ATC only STAR - I always hear "You are cleared direct to ___" never "You will be assigned to the _____ STAR". As a pilot you are expected to know the charts and arrival well enough to understand when you are changed to a new arrival pattern.(2) Holding patterns for the user aircraft are in FS2004 if you follow the approach on the GPS. Speed restrictions are badly needed - but would involve a complete change in the way FS flies AI aircraft - probably a new flight dynamics system.(3) The easiest way to do this would be to limit the number of AI aircraft - no matter how high you set the AI slider and how many flight plans you add - only X aircraft allowed in the arrival system - the others are deleted.(4) It's there in FS2004 with tricks, but could be better implemented in FSX.(5) Good question - we will see. The BGLComp SDK is sufficient to update airports now - though XML coding can be a pain. SceneGenX is the most FS2004 compatible program for modifying parking and airports. You just can't open someone else's airport and change it yourself.(6) See 4(6) #2 - Yes with appropriate levels of AI traffic - No never with realistic levels of AI traffic. Even real world ATC computers can't handle those airports without manual intervention and tweaking of the arriving aircraft. Perhaps someday there will be an ATC for AI where you can watch the scope and order speed changes and such. Of course that would really interfere with flying your own aircraft.(7) Let's hope some of the non-functional coding options in FS2004 work in FSX.

[Guest drdaru1]

I have an issue with your #1 statement. Maybe the controllers up in Dallas don't do that, but down here, on >90% of my flights IFR to KAUS from KGLS, I'll get "Cleared to Austin via Industry 2 - CWK... blah blah." Just because YOU don't hear it often doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

[RFields5421 1]

Is that in the clearance or enroute?Actually the majority of the SID/STAR debate is over local practices - which vary widely across the world.Perhaps the only unbreakable rule is that there is a variation to every rule somewhere.Oh, and though I didn't add it - I'd be much more interested in a new voice pack - but the article on what it took to create the last one certainly explains why we haven't seen a new one.Maybe if the system had triggers to use the intersection codes, star codes - folks would use EditVoicePack and create them.

[RFields5421 1]

And I do get a bit ticked off / frustrated with people (not accusing anyone) on the subject of SID/STAR.There are a lot of folks who complain loud and long about not being able to fly SID/STAR procedures - who only program them into their FMS. They never look at the charts, they never learn what the real procedures are. If the process is not completely automated - they are lost.FS is a compromise - without real ATC controllers it's never going to be 100% compatible with the real world.It's also an opportunity to learn, to discover new things and to figure out ways to make the program adapt to your preferences.A possible future option would be something like FS Live traffic where AI aircraft speed, altitude and position would be dictated and controlled by live feeds from the ATC system. Don't have any clue how much such a system and bandwidth would cost.

[DadJokeCinema 145]

If the system was like the Real world weather system, where it would just download every 15 minutes to get an update of what's going on and where everyone is headed, then it might be doable.Who knows though. Someone has done it, so now it's just the wait until it's easy and affordable.

[Guest drdaru1]

both.that's why the faa rule is there that we have to have at least a text description of all arrival and departure procedures.

[Guest tdragger]

Feel better now? ;)

[Guest United]

I am siding with the originator of this thread. I dont like the apparent fact, which I hope I am wrong, that the impending FSX has little in the way of improvement of AI and ATC and has spent most all of its development capital on multi-player systems. I do not like nor favor such systems. My experience with them, even with flight simming has been very poor. I call it the "VATSIM" downgrade. No offence to VATSIM and similar "multiplayer" organizations, but they cannot, nor can an upcoming FSX multiplayer system, provide staffed and certain air controllers when I want to fly. Time zones, real living and such prevent any approach to realism in that arena. That is why artificial computer intelligence (AI and ATC) is paramount. But, apparently, important "others" disagree. I will buy FSX, no question about it, but I will never agree at this juncture that live multiplayer flight simming has a major role in how most hardcore simmers will use FSX. I most likely will even try multiplayer and hope against hope that my experience will vastly improve over the past, but I am very skeptical. Should I have a good experience, I will be among the first to congradulate ACES for having surprised me. Randy Jura, KPDX

[DadJokeCinema 145]

I haven't done a whole lot of multiplayer flying either, mostly because I didn't think the built in interface was all that great, but I don't see any explanation of what you mean by the "VATSIM downgrade". What exactly does that mean?

[Guest drdaru1]

What he means is that a better ATC/AI system would have allowed him to fly where he wanted - with ATC and traffic on a realistic scale - whenever, and wherever he wanted.Great post btw.