36 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

But that's just the thing - we have a snapshot of default MS ATC from 20 years ago and default MS ATC from today... and it doesn't seem to be any better. 20 years later...

What should also be obvious from the trajectory of FSX is that what we see is what we get. It will not be improved. 

And what we can infer from fsx third party development in atc, and fifty years of computer game design, is that it will probably not get a whole lot better from them either.  Ai is ai.  What game or sim has ever had any sort of ai which could really replicate human behavior and intelligence? You think it’s easy to program a bot that virtually does the job of thousands of very smart men and women? It’s got an upgradeable nav database and SIDs and STARs.  I’ll take that as improvement for now.

5 minutes ago, ShawnG said:

What game or sim has ever had any sort of ai which could really replicate human behavior and intelligence?

The Sims? 😄 😄 

The developers, who knew exactly how things worked and that the little people were nothing but ones and zeros, still felt some emotional involvement with them, and were surprised by this.

Hook

2 minutes ago, LHookins said:

The Sims? 😄 😄 

The developers, who knew exactly how things worked and that the little people were nothing but ones and zeros, still felt some emotional involvement with them, and were surprised by this.

Hook

Sure, but you have to have a willing suspension of disbelief over all the myriad nonsensical things the sims do on a continuous basis.  You wouldn’t want any of them handling the tower at KJFK.

that does bring to mind a couple of fantastic ideas though:

1. All msfs atc should be in spoken simlish 

2. controllers should have emotions and moodlets.

3. you can “flirt” with the enroute controller to get a direct routing.

 

1 hour ago, ShawnG said:

1. All msfs atc should be in spoken simlish 

"Soon soon!" 😄 

Maybe the sims would do a better job of ATC than what we've always had in the past.
 

Quote

3. you can “flirt” with the enroute controller to get a direct routing.

"Put that away!"

Hook

Edited August 14, 20205 yr by LHookins

So, where do we stand now? Have the high priests of aviation determined if airplanes are allowed to fly at 8800 ft or whatever it was? 😅

22 hours ago, mtr75 said:

"Climb and maintain 8,800."

Say WHAT?!

https://youtu.be/tIhpQW3zrj4

 

Lets not forget that MS/Asobo made it clear that this would be a sim that would appeal to both the inexperienced and the SERIOUS flight simmer. Well obviously ATC that gives you altitudes like 8,800 is not something that would achieve that aim. Asobo did not say it would appeal to serious flight simmers, "if you buy a third part ATC add-on". So clearly comments like "it's default ATC" are not relevant. Especially when we consider that no other default ATC in a serious flight simulation has made such an error. 

Correct altitudes is  something that easy to implement of course. So it's quite clear that this is simply an error on the developers part. Probably due to Asobo's zero previous experience in regard to real world or simulated aviation.

So yes, I join you in expressing a little incredulity. Pretty sure Asobo will correct this, I mean I'm sure they wont want to leave in place an ATC that makes simple errors that previous sims haven't.

Edited August 14, 20205 yr by martin-w

8 minutes ago, martin-w said:

MS/Asobo made it clear that this would be a sim that would appeal to both the inexperienced and the SERIOUS flight simmer.

They had to do that to avoid the hate campaign suffered by Microsoft Flight and Flight Sim World. 😄 

Hook

Just now, martin-w said:

 

Especially when we consider that no other default ATC in a serious flight simulation has made such an error. 

 

what?

 

lol

6 hours ago, LHookins said:

We don't have flying cars yet either. 😄  We were expecting to get those 20 years ago.

Has *anyone* made an ATC for a flight sim that you would deem adequate?  It might not be as easy as you think.  

Hook

No, but all prior efforts were based off sims that came out 20 years ago. One would expect in twenty years you could achieve the goals of: not directing airplanes into mountains, and giving standard altitudes. Not real hard. And given that ATC in FSX/P3D was never improved from day 1, I don't expect this to be, either. Which really makes it disappointing.

5 hours ago, ShawnG said:

And what we can infer from fsx third party development in atc, and fifty years of computer game design, is that it will probably not get a whole lot better from them either.  Ai is ai.  What game or sim has ever had any sort of ai which could really replicate human behavior and intelligence? You think it’s easy to program a bot that virtually does the job of thousands of very smart men and women? It’s got an upgradeable nav database and SIDs and STARs.  I’ll take that as improvement for now.

8,000 or 9,000 instead of 8,800 isn't asking the world.

4 hours ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

So, where do we stand now? Have the high priests of aviation determined if airplanes are allowed to fly at 8800 ft or whatever it was? 😅

Boring.

4 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

8,000 or 9,000 instead of 8,800 isn't asking the world.

Likewise, 8,800 instead of 8,000 or 9,000 isn’t the end of the world.

 

5 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

No, but all prior efforts were based off sims that came out 20 years ago. One would expect in twenty years you could achieve the goals of: not directing airplanes into mountains, and giving standard altitudes. Not real hard. And given that ATC in FSX/P3D was never improved from day 1, I don't expect this to be, either. Which really makes it disappointing.

How dare this flight simulation not implement something that no other flight simulation has implemented. The sheer audacity of everyone involved!

Edited August 14, 20205 yr by RobotRock

2 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

One would expect in twenty years you could achieve the goals of: not directing airplanes into mountains, and giving standard altitudes. Not real hard.

I wonder why no one has done it then.

Hook

1 minute ago, RobotRock said:

How dare this flight simulation not implement something that no other flight simulation has implemented. The sheer audacity of everyone involved!

Not only no other flight simulation, but no other third party.  You'd think the market for a rational air traffic control simulation add-on would be big enough to justify making one.   

Lazy?  Not smart enough?  Apathetic?  

Or maybe it's just impossible. It's not like no one has ever tried.

Hook

1 hour ago, RobotRock said:

Likewise, 8,800 instead of 8,000 or 9,000 isn’t the end of the world.

 

How dare this flight simulation not implement something that no other flight simulation has implemented. The sheer audacity of everyone involved!

Stop it with the strawman nonsense. I didn't say it was the end of the world. Why would you do something incorrectly when you could just as easily do it right?

And the last flight simulator ATC AIs were developed 20 years ago. Does your phone still look like this: