I don't understand....

[Guest Dimon1971]

...why beta-folks and other related people are so deadly silent about AI and ATC. Now we know about almost each aspect (graphics, missions, multiplayer etc) of FSX from numerous reviews, but no reasonable word has been said so far about AI/ATC stuff. In fact, significant improvements in this area ARE THE MOST ANTICIPATED ONES within folks with solid FS-experience. So, I would extremely appreciate if someone with knowledge might answer (even in evasive way) the below-mentioned questions.ATC user-player.1. Possibility to fly SIDSTARs and communicate them (change or whatever) with ATC.2. ATC assigns speed restrictions and holding patterns.3. Separation from other traffic on final approach or even on STAR path.4. Possibility to operate non-parallel runways for both player and AI.AI related things.5. Any chance that program such as AFCAD will be included in FSX (or SDK). I saw screenied of EKCH parking spots in FSX preview. It goes without saying that ACES already have some sort of utility that allows to modify parkings (together with their properties). However, the question is whether is will be included in FSX or not.6. Possibility to utilize as many runways as possible (including non-parralel). In KORD, only 2 of 7 runways are active regardless wind spdir and visibility. In KLGA we HARDLY need 4/22 for take-off only and 13/31 for landings only (and visa versa). It WAS POSSIBLE in FS2002, however with the immplementation of hard-coded approaches in FS2004, the option to use non-parralel runway was eliminated. 6.MY PAIN from FS2002 times - Separation, separation, separation!. Will this ever be fixed? Will I ever see KATL and KDFW with AI smoothly land. Please, don't disregard this question.7. Changes in parking codes, new features perhaps?Thanks for those who could read it till the end and for those who would answer these questions.My bestDmitriy

[Guest Dimon1971]

Forgot one...Will it be possible to modify approaches that ATC uses for both player - aircraft and AI. It was a big hope for that in the beginning of FS2004, but when SDK was released, it was so poor as far as AI related stuff concerned, that our dreams were ruined.

[OHN 1]

This is from gamedesigner Paul Lange

[victorwest2 0]

>In fact, significant improvements in this area>ARE THE MOST ANTICIPATED ONES within folks with solid>FS-experience. >It is?

[Guest Dimon1971]

That;s kinda strange statement.The AI community has been growing in tremendous rate all these years. A lot of folks have installed all the existing airlines, made AFCADs with realistic parkings for numerous airports. Almost all of the AI models have been created.

[rich135 0]

Sounds like some really good things are happening with new APIs. (?) Hopefully this will allow third parties to further enhance AI and ATC. I hear Radar Contact 4.1 already does some neat stuff.

[jcmissionary 6]

Based on the various blogs and reports that I've seen, this is what I've drawn out. Keep in mind that this is not any kind of "hard proof". Just some conjectures on my part. And remember Tdragger's advice: "Don't believe everything you read on the internet."1.) No DPs/STARs. Sorry.2.) Again, no.3.) Depends on how you define seperation. Using utilities like AI Smooth, seperation hasn't been a problem for me with FS9.4.) No5.) Couldn't tell you. It would be nice, though. Especially since Lee Swordy has been missing from the FS scene for over 2 years. So unless some other enterprising programmer comes up with one......6.) Probably not, however, for me this isn't that big of a deal. 7.) Again, I couldn't tell you. This is just my impressions from what has been said. I know that ATC is something that people have wanted improved for a long time, myself included. However, it looks like this iteration of FS is not the one that will see the gigantic ATC upgrades that some hope to see. So we can either cry like disappointed childern on Christmas morning because we didn't get what we want, or we can look at what we did get and try to be happy with that."In fact, significant improvements in this area ARE THE MOST ANTICIPATED ONES within folks with solid FS-experience."Not for me. It would have been nice to get some updated ATC, but in all honesty, I couldn't care less about DPs/STARs, or holding patterns. In all my hours of RL flying, I've never been given a STAR, and I've been given a DP once, and I ended up being cleared direct to my airway after flying about half of the DP. I've never been given a hold, for weather or traffic. Sure, the FMC jockeys may froth at the mouth for them, but for the average GA simmer, these things are not nearly as important as a good-looking environment.As some others have said, improvements are in the eye of the beholder. Some have mentioned that the VCs were the biggest improvement from FS2002 to FS9. Yet I hardly ever use the VC, and still think that they're something of a gimmick, even though there are those who swear by them and won't fly an A/C that doesn't have one. Neither of us are in the "right", it's simply a matter of opinion. I'm not saying that you, or anyone else, doesn't have the right to voice your concerns that some features that you want to see aren't being included. However, what I am saying is that it's wrong to make blanket statements like "The hardcore simmers want ATC", or "The hardcore simmers want DPs/STARs and holding patterns." Just because I find it more fun to bore holes though the sky at 10000 feet, rather than monitoring complex systems and subsystems at 35000 feet, doesn't make me any less 'hardcore' than the PMDG/LDS fanatic who can program their FMC blind, and with one arm tied behind their back. :-)

[Guest KrazyIvan]

Dmitriy,Well, I understand your frustration, but in the end there are simply a whole lot of people that play MSFS that only fly VFR. Commercial-level pilots are a whole lot more vocal, especially here on AVSIM, but in the end, ACES simply has to take into account ALL of the MSFS users and their needs. Bush pilots and private VFR pilots will never get anywhere near KORD, KDFW, or KLGA...much less be concerned with how traffic is using the parallel runways. And hardly any of them will be running large enough volumes of traffic through those airports to see an issue even if they did venture near the airspace. Let's face facts here...the issues you bring are are related to a very narrow cross-section of the MSFS community, and that, combined with the difficulty of making an effective fix to these issues, led directly to the decision not to get into this code in this version.To answer your questions (with current public information, speculation, and wild guesses ;) ), questions 1 through 4 will be a pretty solid 'no'. The ATC code has not been changed in any major way, and all of the improvements you ask about are pretty major, although the seperation issue might be much improved with reduced volume. Face it, MSFS was never intended to replicate real-world traffic volumes, and the seperation issues mostly relate to that fact.Your question about the AFCAD editor in the SDK is quite possible, even somewhat assumed. ACES has pretty much given over upgrading airports with more detail to the 3rd party developers, and they'll need the tools to do that. Parking and traffic flow in the airport is part of that process, so I would assume that the SDK will include a tool to adjust that.Your next question was pretty much the same as question 4, and again, parallel runway operations will almost definitely not be touched. The second question 6 was addressed with question 3...traffic volume.Question 7 brings up an interesting point, and one I wanted to ask about myself. In the airport screenshots MS has released already, there are a LOT of parked airliners, both on the ramp and on the terminal. This is a change from FS9 (if I remember right), since FS9 would not leave anywhere near that many aircraft parked at a time. Does this mean that the code for aircraft parking has changed, and that it will be easier to show a full airport now? I've had a devil of a time filling up airports in FS9, and I'd love to see that change.Dmitriy, I know that you're disappointed in the ATC. It's still a weak point in MSFS, despite the complexity at which it operates. But there are a LOT of obstacles to overcome in setting up realistic code for true ATC ops...it takes thousands of highly-trained, skilled professionals to do it in the real world, and they still make mistakes. But I know that all of us would be just as disappointed if ACES hadn't made upgrades to other very basic areas in FSX, like roads and coastlines. There just wasn't the time or the personnel to really make the ATC into the kind of product that would do what you need. But I can assure you that ACES knows about all the issues we're seeing, and if anything can be done about them, they'll do it. The commitment to customer support and satisfaction I've seen in ACES, just in the development cycle, has been nothing short of world-class. They are simply the shining example of how to interface with the community right now (fingers crossed that it lasts ;) ). In the meantime, try out Radar Contact 4, or VATSIM to see if any other ATC solutions meet your needs. I'm looking forward to what skilled 3rd party developers can really do with FSX...especially with ATC.Edit: Apparently JC and I think a lot alike :D

[Guest tdragger]

There's a simple answer: there's not much to talk about. I think it's been reported several times that ATC was not a major area of investment this time around. The work we accomplished over the past two versions (which, if you think about it, is a lot--basic VFR and IFR flight for every airport on the planet) has provided a very capable system for the vast majority of our users.Sure, there's lots of things that it doesn't do--many things we would like to see ourselves--but the cost to add those capabilities is greater than the overall benefit. 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.For now, we're investing in any area where we're not constrained by programming code--on-line play with real users. With FSX pilots will have the ability to interact with controllers in ways we could never program. Want to fly realistic approaches using updated charts? No problem. Want to play out emergency scenarios? Go ahead. I'd suggest everyone try these new features in FSX before they pass judgement on whether they've gotten their $70 worth. ;)

[n4gix 4,955]

>Sure, the FMC jockeys may froth at the mouth for>them, but for the average GA simmer, these things are not>nearly as important as a good-looking environment.Excellent points! Let it likewise be acknowledged that those same "FMC jockeys" would be equally "froth[ing] at the mouth" the very first time they got stacked into an indefinite weather related hold!"Can you imagine being stuck in a stacked holding pattern at KORD for an hour or more? How boring would that be!!! ;)

[Guest Dimon1971]

Thank you very much guys for a quite productive discussion that I really didn't expect.Speaking about AI Smooth I must say that this utility (though it ease the pain a bit) has been quite inefficient in busy airports, especailly in those where we use "cross-runaways" technique. Again, what works in KBUF, doesn't work at KLAX. After the several minutes I usually see 100 planes in the holding pattern within 30NM zone - the fact that hits FPS very badly.I dare to ask another question (or perhaps to speculate a little). How good new SDK would be about ATC and AI. Whether it will be possible or not to control parameters of AI behaviour and change them. For example, many smart folks from PAI, AIA, EVAI forums claimed that there have been parameters in FS2004 AI code that control a speed of AI planes during different phases of flight. Moreover, even Peter Dowson stated that a year or two ago. However, due to the fact that these parameters were hard coded and SDK was silent about them, we were unable to do anything about AI-speed control, but if we had this code, the idea of AI separation on final approach might have been implemented into reality.

[aerdt 0]

The current ATC is quite capable for VFR flying, so I don't really have any problems with that, except maybe REIL over CTAF. However, the default ATC is far from being optimal for IFR flights with SIDs/STARs, holdings, etc.Let's just hope that Radar Contact be available sooner for FSX than it was for FS9.MS seems to have invested a lot in the multiplayer ATC and I bet that this is going to provide a LOT more coverage, realism, ease-of-use and ultimately more fun than VATSIM and IVAO combined, if enough capable controllers are available to man the positions.I know that I'll be doing a whole lot more controlling and have more fun than with the current 3rd party solutions.Pat

[Guest KrazyIvan]

Dmitriy,We don't know a whole lot right now about what the SDK will contain or whether certain variables will be accessable. What we do know is that ACES has invited a large number of 3rd party developers to take part in beta testing and compatability testing for FSX. Those developers are bound by a NDA, so this information will be completely unavailable until either ACES decides to make it public, or until FSX is released. All I can say is that it would be unusual in the extreme to have left out the 3rd party traffic developers from this invitation. And if they are evaluating the SDK and the beta of FSX, I would be very surprised if they didn't ask ACES for the same tools you are now.-Ivan

[slashed2 53]

The more I hear about the online controllers the more interesting an idea it seems. The question will be the same as vatsim though, how do you maintain enough human controllers to meet the needs of every flight simmer online? Will FS ATC be available at those airports which are not manned? Still, the more I hear, the more intriguing it sounds.Ian.

[frankla 44]

People forget that FS was not desgined to handle "100 planes" at an airport! You are demanding MS to fix a problem that is caused by modification of the software by others; in this case an AI software package! Its unfair!