3 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

What have you got to lose?

Ray, I favor RC as well, out of all of them.

But Ground Control is what we have to lose, RC always needed to control AI ground traffic. Especially at busy airports, w/o specific taxi instructions, this destroys the realism. No Specific dynamic SID/STAR assignments. No VFR service.

53 minutes ago, DJJose said:

I've settled on default with editvoicepack mods

 

1 hour ago, FS++ said:

Enjoy PF3, Radar Contact, Pilot2Atc, PilotEdge or Vatsim.

If it were impossible to simulate realistic ATC then of course we would have to settle for simple. 

It is not that its impossible, its simply put on the back burner. The desire is not there, the community is not in an "uproar" about it. But the question is why? What is there to be afraid of?  Why make-up excuses about how difficult or expensive it would be, rather than require ATC realism more than PBR/DX12/VR. It is that simple.

As soon as PBR or VR came into the scene, there should have been an uproar among LM staff, beta testers, and end users saying "Forget PBR & VR WHAT ABOUT ATC, it needs an overhaul!" "We can do PBR and VR AFTER ATC is overhauled!"

What makes True Sky more important than ATC when we had Active Sky progressing nicely. Its like decision makers are deliberately not paying attention to the severe (in my view) lack of realism in ATC and AI behavior/intelligence.

If one looks at the latest feedback snapshot for MSFS Wishlist, ATC and AI are among the TOP 3, so...🤨 

1 minute ago, pracines said:

What makes True Sky more important than ATC when we had Active Sky progressing nicely. Its like decision makers are deliberately not paying attention to the severe (in my view) lack of realism in ATC and AI behavior/intelligence.

ASP4 & Skforce 3d look amazing! ATC is what needed some improvement.

The loading textures in the distance and finding away to allow installing our add-ons without the added extra pauses or stutters that are present after we load up our sims needed attention.

The added fps in v5 is nice but not at the expense of CTDs due to vRAM.

Having said all that, the improvements that were made in the v4 run are commendable an for that I'm eternally grateful.

48 minutes ago, pracines said:

Ray, I favor RC as well, out of all of them.

But Ground Control is what we have to lose, RC always needed to control AI ground traffic. Especially at busy airports, w/o specific taxi instructions, this destroys the realism. No Specific dynamic SID/STAR assignments. No VFR service.

I doubt any of the ATC programs can actually control Ground traffic. RC responds to its actions using the status of the aircraft to issue the relevant instruction. For example,...

• When status changes to Clearance you'll hear that aircraft being given Clearance instructions.
• When the Ai status changes to Taxi Out then RC issues the instruction to taxi to Runway xx and hold short.
• When status changes to TakeOff1 RC gives clearance to Take Off.

Yes, I agree it would be nice to be issued a SID at Clearance but the sheer number of them made that impossible. We investigated it when RC5 was being developed but the work was astronomical. We were looking at creating the waypoints for each one whcih would have taken the rest of our lives to finish. Navigraph would have been the solution but that was never investigated because I think that's the time JD started to lose interest.

There is a VFR service of a sort but remember RC4 is primarily an IFR program. RC4 is not perfect because none of them are. But it does allow you to fly anywhere at any time convenient to you and know there is a controller at the other end waiting to issue instructions to get you on the ground. That is its biggest selling point to me,

Edited April 16, 20206 yr by Ray Proudfoot

3 hours ago, Branimir said:

The best "AI and ATC addon" is IVAO/VATSIM 😄

The only thing is that you have to have a controller online and other people otherwise it is just like flying without Atc! I did so many flights on networks where I didn’t have a controller or see any other traffic 🤔

Edited April 16, 20206 yr by rob0203

Are we waiting for an update PRO-ATC-X ?

18 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

No, because this would require actual development work, rather than just slapping a fresh coat of paint on 15 year old FSX code.

Not to mention the fact that the answer is yes. I've noticed some changes. For example not having to switch from ground to tower to request a takeoff clearance. After ground gives you the go ahead to switch to tower, requesting takeoff from the tower is one of the choices. And that's a change I've noticed in 20 minutes' total of flying in v5. I'm sure there's more. 

6 hours ago, BMW969 said:

Are we waiting for an update PRO-ATC-X ?

ProATC/X News 01 June 2019

« on: 01 June, 2019, 13:37:09 PM »

 

Hi All,

It has been a VERY longtime since we have posted about anything to do with development and updates of ProATC/X. Well, now I can confirm that development will continue in the near future, when that date will be I currently do not know.  The reason for this massive void of information is due to the massive real world issues that currently the Developer is dealing with and has been for many months. I spoke to him yesterday and hence today I can confirm that ProATC/X is not 'dead'.
I would like to say on Mourad's behalf a great big thank you to all of the support guys here, who have relentlessly provided help and support over the last 12months, not knowing themselves what was happening. These guys do this support for no financial rewards what so ever, so again thank you all.

Also a big thank you to everyone here, who is supporting ProATC/X here and outside of this forum, and for all the new users who are joining still.

The future once again is looking good.

If anyone has any issues outside of normal support, then please drop me an email and I will answer what I can.

When I get any more information that I can share then I will do so.

Thanks to you all

Clive

On 4/15/2020 at 8:07 PM, Clipper Ocean Spray said:

On my rig, all the departing AI are getting stuck in the "clearance" state and not pushing back (stuck at the gate).  Is anyone else seeing that?

Just a quick followup:  problem is with the default trafficAircraft.bgl (traffic schedule file) in scenery/world/scenery.  Temp workaround:  replace with P3Dv4 default trafficAircraft.bgl file (backup P3Dv5 original and store OUTSIDE scenery/world/scenery directory) or use a custom/add-on schedule.

I would love to you the ATC is improved, but right now many users (including myself) can't even complete a flight with the ATC window open due to a bug acknowledged by LM.

In point of fact there actually has been a change to the ATC, although probably not the one most people were wishing for. Namely, V5 adds support for 8.33 Khz radio channel separation. This is important if you want realistic comms, especially in Europe where it has been a requirement for a few years.

On 4/16/2020 at 9:19 PM, pracines said:

ProATC/X News 01 June 2019

« on: 01 June, 2019, 13:37:09 PM »

 

Hi All,

It has been a VERY longtime since we have posted about anything to do with development and updates of ProATC/X. Well, now I can confirm that development will continue in the near future, when that date will be I currently do not know.  The reason for this massive void of information is due to the massive real world issues that currently the Developer is dealing with and has been for many months. I spoke to him yesterday and hence today I can confirm that ProATC/X is not 'dead'.
I would like to say on Mourad's behalf a great big thank you to all of the support guys here, who have relentlessly provided help and support over the last 12months, not knowing themselves what was happening. These guys do this support for no financial rewards what so ever, so again thank you all.

Also a big thank you to everyone here, who is supporting ProATC/X here and outside of this forum, and for all the new users who are joining still.

The future once again is looking good.

If anyone has any issues outside of normal support, then please drop me an email and I will answer what I can.

When I get any more information that I can share then I will do so.

Thanks to you all

Clive

And, has anything happened since? Seems pretty dead to me. "The future is looking good" - is there a new release pending? (And before someone takes me to task for not understanding the real world issues - I do, but if would be fairer to make a clean cut and simply say: for personal reasons, development can not continue at this time. 

Edited April 20, 20206 yr by Ricardo41

On 4/20/2020 at 12:05 AM, Ricardo41 said:

And, has anything happened since? Seems pretty dead to me. "The future is looking good" - is there a new release pending? (And before someone takes me to task for not understanding the real world issues - I do, but if would be fairer to make a clean cut and simply say: for personal reasons, development can not continue at this time. 

I agree.

The next message may be something like COVID-19 has not hindered our efforts and we are working hard. Then the one after that 2 years from the last message, we're still working and a new version announcement will be coming. Then P3D version 13 gets released and ATC is still like FS2002 but P3D can be run on a holodeck.😧

On 4/19/2020 at 7:44 PM, Chock said:

In point of fact there actually has been a change to the ATC, although probably not the one most people were wishing for. Namely, V5 adds support for 8.33 Khz radio channel separation. This is important if you want realistic comms, especially in Europe where it has been a requirement for a few years.

I would classify this as an aircraft avionics/radio/panel capability more than ATC, you think? ATC is separate from the aircraft themselves. 

On 4/19/2020 at 6:43 PM, PurdueKev said:

I would love to you the ATC is improved, but right now many users (including myself) can't even complete a flight with the ATC window open due to a bug acknowledged by LM.

This gives more probable evidence that ATC is on a proverbial back burner. If this is not true, then its simple for LM to make a statement - 'we are working on ATC and there will be "road work ahead"' - anything to give some hope.

Until ATC finally gets put on priority, I think this community should continue to keep this topic not just alive, but roaring with activity.

On 4/16/2020 at 9:32 AM, mtr75 said:

Not to mention the fact that the answer is yes. I've noticed some changes. For example not having to switch from ground to tower to request a takeoff clearance. After ground gives you the go ahead to switch to tower, requesting takeoff from the tower is one of the choices. And that's a change I've noticed in 20 minutes' total of flying in v5. I'm sure there's more. 

If I understand you correctly, this would happen if the GND and TWR shared the same frequency. However if they did not share, then this would not be correct/realistic behavior.

If you are taking about a co-pilot of sorts switching for you, then this would have nothing to do with "ATC".