I know FSX will sport a vastly improved ATC system. One thing I won't miss (hopefully) is ATC asking you to spot aircraft at unrealistic angles like your six o'clock. FS9's ATC will fly you into mountains and pile up AI traffic to a point your approach is all but ruined at busier airports like KATL. Hopefully we see SID/STARS implemented in the new version as well as ATC being smart enough not to ask you to look for traffic out of your line of site (every plane doesn

I agree with you. And also we could have a improvement on the multiplayer adding ATC and AI Traffic Fernando

What would you guys say the greatest challenge to implementing SIDs and STARs in FSX? RH

If they add terminal procedures, I'd like to propose that they also come up with some sort of deal with Jeppessen whereby we can update the navigation database periodically (even if it's every few months, it'd be a lot better than having the static one we have now - within a year or so, the FS database is way out of date compared to addons that use their own up to date data). With DAFIF gone now, this would give addon makers a built in database to use as well etc...

I think thats useless, c'mon guys just fly vatsim.

>I know FSX will sport a vastly improved ATC system. Could you please tell me where that information can be found? Seems I've missed it. Thanks

I think that

Yes. Do tell... ;)

I haven't really kept up with it. Is DAFIF gone now? I thought it got a stay of execution?Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

>I know FSX will sport a vastly improved ATC system. One thing>I won't miss (hopefully) is ATC asking you to spot aircraft at>unrealistic angles like your six o'clock. FS9's ATC will fly>you into mountains and pile up AI traffic to a point your>approach is all but ruined at busier airports like KATL. >Hopefully we see SID/STARS implemented in the new version as>well as ATC being smart enough not to ask you to look for>traffic out of your line of site (every plane doesn

3.5 Years x 20 programmers = better ATC ;)

Where do you stop with ATC? The problem adding ATC in a realistic way within the programme is that it is so huge and complex that it would take a massive amount of disc space to do in a realistic way.What we have could be improved on. There is a lot of incorrect phraseology and ATC procedures as well as incorrect dialect for different parts of the world in the existing system.I hate the huge Mickey mouse right and left turns given when radar headings are usually only a small deviation real world.More important is a full nav database with all the intersections as well as full SIDS and STARS so the complex offerings from the likes of PMDG and Level D etc do not require third parties to build the SID STARS.That doesnt need to be kept up to date for a home simulation. Maybe a one year downloadable update option could be made available at a cost to the hardcore simming community.Peter

>I know FSX will sport a vastly improved ATC system. Sounds to me like lots of wishful thinking. I am glad that you "know" something most of us don't. ;)Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

If you wanted an even close to 100% realistic ATC system in FS, it would almost cost what the entire sim does, and I doubt most folks would be willing to pay for that. Look at the cost of "Radar Contact", and that is not even 100%.I highly doubt MS would devote 20 programmers to ATC programming, and do agree that if you need it as real as can be, then fly on line or perhaps use a 3rd party program such as Radar Contact.Believe it or not, for the vast majority of FS users, the current ATC is just fine. Anyone not believe that statement? That's your choice! ;-)However, I am confident that MS does tweak / make some improvements (however small) which each version. If nothing else to correct any "bugs" from the previous version.For those who may not use ATC in real life, I might suggest a read of these columns by Don Brown at AVWEB. It will give you some very interesting insight into just what the real thing is all about, and just how complex it can be.http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182651-1.htmlDon is an ATC specialist in the Atlanta area.There is a wealth of real aviation information at AVWEB, yours for the taking.http://www.avweb.comRegards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

I'll be very happy if they intergrate ICAO standards and phraseology (including SIDs/STARs) in to the ATC system, and perhaps a few different transistion levels too. Most systems (except the FAA's) tend to be heavily ICAO based anyway - especially in regard to phraseology, it is the generic standard (why they put in FAA style I'll never know - must be American bias I guess, most of the developed world is using stuff closer to ICAO, infact most of the world full stop is). Providing it can adequately manage traffic too (which SIDs/STARs should assist in) then it should make for an all round better experience. A central database including SIDs/STARs would be great, especially if addon products can make use of it. With this I feel we may even see some freeware FMCs, standalone or intergrated.Whilst all this would be nice, I don't expect it to happen as I'm sure there are higher priority issues for the developers. After all, as perviously said if you want ATC realism, you can go and fly at Vatsim or purchase Radar Contact - there are alternatives (even if they're not ideal).