Would not surprise me if they port FSW ATC into MSFS they have access to all the legacy product saves time and money just add more accents .

Edited October 2, 20196 yr by rjfry

Oof

I want to hear the term "ported from XXX sim" as little as possible here.

I might/probably be wrong, but I hear what could to be ATC on the first MS 2020 Trailer. Or could it be the flight attendant?

at 0:35

 

Edited October 2, 20196 yr by RamonB

 

 

 

1

24 minutes ago, RamonB said:

I might/probably be wrong, but I hear what could to be ATC on the first MS 2020 Trailer. Or could it be the flight attendant?

That definitely is ATC, but it's unlikely that was from in-game at that point as there was no ATC at the Renton event Probably either a RW recording or pulled from some other product.

Did anyone else read somewhere in the last couple of days that they were thinking about how to get regional voices into the game? I’m finding it difficult to separate reality from what’s been in my head before falling asleep the last couple of nights...

Since there is likely going to be AI, both the ATC and the AI aircraft will need an "artificial intelligence" overhaul. 

Its not just the lack of sid/star, or the zig zag vectors, but ground handling is a big one too, with so many traffic jams because of a lack of "intelligence". The go arounds can be distressing too.

Weather changes need to be known by both AI and ATC. Clearance delivery (and/or the flight planner) needs to know the weather.

Flight service stations would be an awesome addition for VFR flight.

If an algorithm could be developed so that each airport could have there own set of variables/logic that are specific to airspace, runway/taxiway layouts, how busy the environment is, ect., this could possibly solve many problems.  

 As it is the ATC we have available to us to date, is not dynamic enough, not specialized enough, and too rigid.

ATC is a huge task, yes, but if its going to be delayed because of being a huge task, I would say that rendering the whole world as wonderfully as has been accomplished, is a huge task too.

EXCUSES 😇

Bring on the practical and  reasonable ideas flight simmers!💡

6 hours ago, Sam said:

Interesting, and how would you manage it so it would be somewhat real? Vatsim is backed by a huge community which both counts RW experience (pilots and controllers who might be local to the FIR) and enthusiasts who wish to learn how to control.

I have a hard time seeing how you would implement that and *poof* get rid of the need for such services.

 

 

I love Vatsim also.  There is better in-sim ATC possible.  The best I experienced was in subLogic's Flight Assignment:ATP, which was released in 1990 and kept alive by enthusiasts until the late 1990's.  That ATC was much better than ATC in any Microsoft or Sierra product.  So there are possibilities....  But I seriously doubt it will harm Vatsim.

6 hours ago, adamv1 said:

Cortana will be the ATC in FS2020. 

LOL. I can see a bean-counter at Microsoft saying that. Maybe Steve Ballmer will call in a favor.

Soooooo many thoughts on this subject. But I'll start with the foundational stuff.

Online ATC is not a solution. One cannot rely upon VATSIM or IVAO or PilotEdge to have controllers available at every position, at every facility, 24 hours a day. Therefore, we need built-in ATC.

Despite the protestations of many, the FSX ATC was very good for it's time, and certainly better than any shoddy 3rd party ATC addon with incorrect phraseology, inability to control AI traffic, and concatenated voices that sounded as natural as ARMA 2.

But FSX ATC also left a lot to be desired. Thankfully, in the intervening 13 years, text-to-speech and voice recognition have improved by leaps and bounds. I would expect the MS Cortana services to form the backbone of any new ATC implementation. It's a no brainers, with very natural sounding voices, regional accents, foreign language capability, and the ability to create new voices using the SDK. This should provide for a very natural sounding experience, with the option to use voice recognition as input.

As for procedures, thankfully ATC by its nature is very procedural and lends itself to the creation of algorithms easily executable by software. Although very complex, once armed with correct data and procedures--which are publically available--a skilled team of developers should be able to replicate the vast majority of ATC functions. For instance, radar vectors are nothing more than a bit of geometry and trigonometry applied to maintain a set of published separation standards. 

This is not to say the job is "easy" or "simple", but it is very logical and procedural.

If I were King for a day, we would have everything from FSX plus reroutes; deviations; diversions; correct RNAV; PAR/ASR; TACAN; properly verbalized flight numbers, fixes, and airports; accurate separation minima; intersecting runways; LAHSO; and even a little bit of optional traffic flow management. Because who doesn't need an EDCT when headed to Chicago?

And about a hundred other things I didn't list.

 

Agreed. I use Pilot2ATC but I would like to see it included in the sim, and improved. MS can add live ATC with all the domains they control. At least add the ability for users to add to ATC via SDK or other manner.

1 hour ago, Noodle said:

and certainly better than any shoddy 3rd party ATC addon with incorrect phraseology
 

FSX wasn't really much better though was it? Very very very US phraseology centric. A huge amount of which is non-ICAO standard i.e. totally at odds with how the rest of the world does it. I mean visibility in statute miles, how ridiculous. 

Please, for the love of Christ Microsoft, if you are launching an ATC system (plus built in nav planning) with the product then look outside the bubble of the United States and do it properly and ACCURATELY i.a.w. ICAO doc 4444/annex 11/doc 8168. 

I do not want to hear pressure settings referenced to inches of mercury when flying into Azerbaijan. I don't want to hear 'flight following' when flying in France. I don't want to hear "with you" or "fly straight in" anywhere. I don't want to hear "enter left traffic" when flying in Scotland. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. 

I am a real world A320 pilot. The topic of accurate R/T is such a bugbear of mine that I will happily, free of charge, consult on any alpha/beta testing with specific detailed reference to accuracy in comms and procedural flying. I will do the groundwork, thoroughly explain my rationale and reference the rule in ICAO docs when logging a bug issue or inaccuracy. It would be a huge amount of effort that I'd happily do for free. Just please don't ruin the new sim with a half arsed, lazy, technically inaccurate attempt at ATC and nav planning. 

Quote

Because who doesn't need an EDCT when headed to Chicago?

Me. Because every other country calls them CTOTs/slots!

Considering the developers are French, I'd say you have a decent chance of getting what you want.

As passionate as you feel about your dislike for American-centric content, I feel the same way about Euro-centric content. I just have the good grace not to call the way you guys do things, "ridiculous".

Regardless, that's why I advocate using TTS for the ATC voices so there's no need to record two or more versions of procedures multiplied by the number of voices included.

In this way, the exact phraseology is easily editable to conform either to your beloved ICAO, or my equally correct FAA standards. Or better yet, each FIR simply uses a configuration file to determine which set of rules to use.

And like you, I am equally as passionate and would offer the exact same services. Then the user would be able to enjoy regionally appropriate procedures regardless of where they fly.

 

Edited October 3, 20196 yr by Noodle

50 minutes ago, 3d102 said:

Me. Because every other country calls them CTOTs/slots!

Cool story. But if you were flying to Chicago, you'd get an EDCT time, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Am not too worried about ATC at this point. from the little i could could gather from the numerous interviews with the Asobo crew, it looks like they where thrown into the deep end with the sim. Aviation is huge industry, and this guys are barely just getting PPL's and still trying to create a flight sim. I believe they want to create a great product and will need some time to learn the ropes.Otherwise they should hire someone with in-dept knowledge on ATC (Doc4444/ 8168) to develop the ATC component of the flight sim.

Other than programming I don't see a reason why vatsim/ivao wouldn't work with the new sim.  Someone just has to develop a new app