ATC Discussion

[ap1 16]

Hopefully another ATC topic is allowed otherwise please direct me to another discussion about the new ATC for FS2020 thank you.

I personally do think having a built in default ATC for a flight sim is important especially for IFR and airline flying.  Most of us I’m sure know the problems with the default FS9 or FSX ATC which is the lack of holds, speed assignments, SIDS/STARS and also unrealistic radar vectoring for instrument approaches.  I also would like to see vectoring for departure especially when the SID calls for vectoring to the departure waypoint.

The obvious problem with default ATC vectoring is the zig zag vectors which is the result of a lack of wind correction.  The other problems are being too low too far out and also the vectored pattern your in is way to wide.  I calculated that your about 20 miles out mid field from the airport on downwind.  In real life you should be about 5 or 6 out mid field on downwind.  Also the base and intercept legs are way too long.  Too me they feel like there about 5 to 10 miles.  And because of the intercept leg being so long, your about 20 miles out from the airport on base when you line up on the ILS 10 miles out.  Again in real life, it’s a quick turn to base and the intercept vector is only 2 to 3 miles to line up about 10 to 12 miles out.

Along with better vectoring in the new sim should come with realistic separation of the AI traffic which I would like to also see follow SIDs and STARs.

In closing what are your thoughts on this subject?  At the very least now I’m quite impressed with what Microsoft has done.  The graphics and scenery is very good and the aircraft hopefully will be good and I hope we will also see FMCs in the airliners.

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

I don’t know what to add as everything you said has already been said by many other people in regards to ATC. I think we’ll just have to wait and see how the progression pans out and if it gets implemented at some point. If not, maybe a 3rd party developer can take care of it.

[ap1 16]

38 minutes ago, cmpbellsjc said:

I don’t know what to add as everything you said has already been said by many other people in regards to ATC. I think we’ll just have to wait and see how the progression pans out and if it gets implemented at some point. If not, maybe a 3rd party developer can take care of it.

I agree with that.  Kind of up to Microsoft also on what are the main priorities for them.

[Superdelphinus 718]

I would be happy with what FSX had, with the addition of sids and stars to start with. 

[b737800 470]

In my humble opinion, ATC needs voice control. ATC without voice is like control surfaces with keyboard - you can just about do simple things but it's nowhere near good enough.

Microsoft's own speech recognition is... inadequate to say the least. Add a little background noise and it is worse than useless. There are some cloud based technologies that are easily good enough to implement now, but that entails ongoing costs, which probably needs subscriptions.

Who here would be willing to pay $10 or so each and every month for decent ATC (which is still simulated, not VATSIM like)?

[andyjohnston.net 620]

2 hours ago, b737800 said:

Who here would be willing to pay $10 or so each and every month for decent ATC (which is still simulated, not VATSIM like)?

Not me.  We're looking at the possibility (the devs said they're trying to avoid it but who knows what will happen) of having to pay a subscription for the program, then pay an additional fee for imperfect atc?  Personally, I think the atc that exists in FS-2004/FSX/P3D isn't bad for what it does.

[Noooch 1,084]

7 minutes ago, andyjohnston.net said:

Personally, I think the atc that exists in FS-2004/FSX/P3D isn't bad for what it does.

It isn't, but having in mind how MSFS looks, it would be a shame for ATC not to take benefit of the latest technologies available.

[Sartanius 399]

I'm with those who think the existing FSX/P3D ATC is adequate for launch (since they already have the code base), but would love to see additional core development to add the more advanced capabilities discussed here.  Time will tell.  Most certainly the developers are well aware of the demand for ATC from the community.

[dave2013 1,159]

I hope the developers simply improve the FSX ATC, i.e. fix the vectoring issues, utilize SIDs and STARs, and fix the late altitude clearances.

I wouldn't count on 3rd party developers for ATC.  There are several offerings available for FSX right now and they all have major flaws and/or shortcomings.

Dave 

[Kilo60 660]

5 hours ago, dave2013 said:

I hope the developers simply improve the FSX ATC, i.e. fix the vectoring issues, utilize SIDs and STARs, and fix the late altitude clearances.

I wouldn't count on 3rd party developers for ATC.  There are several offerings available for FSX right now and they all have major flaws and/or shortcomings.

Dave 

So true!!!

 

Add-on ATC has been a mixed bag and default is still better in many ways!

[JanH 4]

5 hours ago, dave2013 said:

i.e. fix the vectoring issues, utilize SIDs and STARs, and fix the late altitude clearances.

... and also hopefully some of the other more egregious issues I remember (unless they've already been fixed in FSX - since I'm flight simming only very intermittently, I've still remained on FS9 so far):

• better handling of spacing planes on approach and controlling approach speeds, so you're no longer suddenly being overtaken by the jet behind you when doing an approach in a slower plane (i.e. what you now have to use AI Smooth/AI Separation for)
• Better handling of ground traffic wanting to cross active runways - if I remember correctly, a single plane on approach will cause all ground traffic to come for a standstill for ages, even if it is still miles away
• Better distribution of traffic across active runways that isn't based solely on direction of arrival/departure, so you no longer end up with one runway possibly grossly overloaded and the other sitting empty

And ingenious as the crossway runway technique and other similar hacks are, I'm sure airport scenery creators would appreciate if some additional options for configuring which runways should be used when could be used if desired.

[Drumcode 1,914]

All I ask for is proper worldwide procedures and phonetically accurate voice representations with possibly regional accents and if not at the release, make it an update at some point.

[ap1 16]

2 hours ago, JanH said:

... and also hopefully some of the other more egregious issues I remember (unless they've already been fixed in FSX - since I'm flight simming only very intermittently, I've still remained on FS9 so far):

• better handling of spacing planes on approach and controlling approach speeds, so you're no longer suddenly being overtaken by the jet behind you when doing an approach in a slower plane (i.e. what you now have to use AI Smooth/AI Separation for)
• Better handling of ground traffic wanting to cross active runways - if I remember correctly, a single plane on approach will cause all ground traffic to come for a standstill for ages, even if it is still miles away
• Better distribution of traffic across active runways that isn't based solely on direction of arrival/departure, so you no longer end up with one runway possibly grossly overloaded and the other sitting empty

And ingenious as the crossway runway technique and other similar hacks are, I'm sure airport scenery creators would appreciate if some additional options for configuring which runways should be used when could be used if desired.

Yep those are great suggestions.  Let’s hope Microsoft will implement an ATC.  If it’s not able to be be put in this version, then next version the team could probably focus on ATC more.

[Jayhawk75 0]

I would agree that a voice controlled ATC would be nice.  It is fun to fly on VatSim, however, flying smaller aircraft there is sparse coverage.

[ryanbatc 13,127]

I'm happy with online service at Pilot Edge.

Other than that for the rest of the world it would be nice to have at least FSX-era ATC that has been upgraded to more realistic and relevant procedures.