ATC Needs Complete Overhaul

[WestAir 2,522]

My biggest pet peeve is the lack of customization provided to simmers. Asobo knows their ATC is bare bones, so give me the ability to force request runways and altitudes.

I should be able to request (demand) the runway I want. Taking off into a 10 knot headwind does me no good if the runway is 2,000m shorter than I need, so let me choose the other runway. Waiting 20 years for ATC to tell other aircraft to start their descent, while I wait at 12,000 for the next step in my climb, is ridiculous. Just let me bypass the "climb 12,000 expect FL240" entirely until you come up with a fleshed out ATC update.

EVERYTHING can be avoided if there was a little red "bypass current request" option.

[sd_flyer 6,040]

49 minutes ago, RandallR said:

I certainly agree with this and look forward to giving Pilot Edge a whirl after I can trust the aircraft and nav systems to not put me in an bad situation.  In the meantime, some basic items in the built-in ATC can be corrected or adjusted.

Sure it needs to improve badly. Yet if you compare in with on in XP11 you wont complain at all LOL In fact, back in my days in XP11 I have never use stock ATC.

[WestAir 2,522]

Okay so I just did another IFR (KDCA-EGLL). 130nm out the Neo couldn't find ATIS info. Hit with a sudden "descent FL270" without any idea what approach I was setting up for. No baro pressure info passing transition altitude. No "expect" approach / runway or ability to request an approach and still no option to tune ATIS.

I go from "Descent 17,000" to "You are 37nm out. Descent and maintain 3,000 - do not exceed 220 knots. Cleared ILS 09L with CHT transition." 

Thanks for the heads up! Of course the NEO is bugged so you can't modify the FMS once the approach kicks in, so I have no idea where CHT is. I'm also 10,000 too high and still no ATIS available. I don't even know what the barometric pressure is! I just cancelled IFR and did a 360 to lose altitude and landed. What a buzzkill...

Man I miss RC4.

Edited February 1, 2021 by WestAir

[himmelhorse 1,276]

Manny, 

How many millions and trillions of times have I told you not to exaggerate mate.

I know you are just implying that general expectations far exceed the abilities of MSFS for now and I found your response funny. Thank you for that.

Tony

 

[fppilot 4,360]

3 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

Just so people know, and even though I rarely use default ATC...it was brought to Asobo's attention in the EARLY days with plenty of documentation on how to make it realistic.

In my opinion, almost all of the concerns were ignored.

There is definitely a time and place for default simulator ATC, but it is indeed a disaster in this release.

 

100%² agreement.  And ATIS/AWOS is in need of comprehensive revision as well.

[SierraHotel 979]

10 hours ago, ATP CFII MEI said:

It is clear the developers spent all their time on scenery and not enough time on air traffic control.  I used MFS X for a long time and that ATC module was horrific, but the ATC module for MFS 2000 is even worse!

I fly everything IFR on flight plans developed by professional flight planning/airline dispatching software.  I have to transfer them into MFS 2000, which takes a while, and then I can go off and fly the route.  The whole package is really nice and I like it better than MFS X, but when it comes to ATC I have to say I am totally disappointed.

The ATC module uses words and phrases no pilot or controller would ever say.  It totally restricts what the pilot can do when interacting with ATC, and if you don't at least acknowledge what the controller says to do it WILL NOT let you go beyond that point or do anything else.

Case in point, when flying a Cessna 172, I asked for a different approach from the controller from that which he assigned.  MFS issued a completely new clearance and said "Climb and maintain FL180."  Obviously, a C172 can't do that and there is no way to tell the controller "unable," which is what I would do in real life.  So, in the simulator you must ack the climb but don't climb (to tick the "the aircraft responded" bit within the ATC module,) and request a lower altitude.  It stacks that request behind the climb request by saying, "Climb and maintain FL 180, expect 8000 (or whatever you ask for)" -- and from that point on unless you actually climb to FL180 (which is impossible) it does nothing but bark at you to "expedite your climb to FL180."  It's an impossible situation -- yet one that is easily resolved in real life.  It has caused me to cancel IFR to shut off the barking.  And it doesn't help to re-establish contact and ask for a new clearance.  It just shoots up up to FL180 all over again, so nothing gained.

Another funny one is when flying in northern Texas.  It calls the centre "F T Worth Centre" -- spelling out the letters F and T -- instead of saying "Fort Worth Centre."  NO controller or pilot would ever do that.

It says "tree" instead of "three."  I know the ICAO standard says to say "tree," but NO ONE does that.  Same for "fife" as opposed to "five."

When changing frequency, the controller always says, "...continue as planned, altimeter XX.XX."  NO CONTROLLER does that.  You check on a new frequency and give your altitude, and the controller just acknowledges you and MAYBE gives the altimeter setting.

I have also read, on this forum and others, people saying ATC does weird things to them.  I can believe all those stories.  The ATC module is totally broken.  It is inflexible, directs impossible situations, isn't forgiving to correct errors, and says things no pilot or controller would ever say.  I don't know if there is a third-party fix for this, but I would really hope Microsoft assigns some talent to this and corrects the problem.  Some of us really do want to use this software for IFR flying as close to the real world as possible, and this ATC module leaves us totally lacking in almost every respect.

The good news is that ProATC X is being developed for MSFS.

[Ricardo41 5,949]

I wish folks would use the search function. This has been discussed here a million times. The issues and questions have been raised, discussed and debated a million times. It's like watching season 12888 of Game of Thrones, with Danaerys still crying because she lost a dragon in season 2. 

What is this supposed to yield? Asobo isn't going to suddenly scrap their development road maps and throw all their resources behind the atc. 

MSFS is not a "certified training device". It's a game, geared towards gamers, with a controller and an xbox. Any serious further development of the atc system will have to come from outside parties. 

Vatsim and Pilot Edge are not an option for a lot of folks. 

Make an addon that is as easy to use as the default atc, doesn't require a second monitor, with an elegant ui, realistic sounding, regional dependent atc voices, all around correct procedures etc. - and I'll be the first to buy it. 

My suspicion is, though, that I'm more likely to be called by Rihanna to model in her new fashion show.

4 hours ago, ATP CFII MEI said:

There are plenty of really good teaching aids and in my 35+ years of being a CFI using Microsoft flight simulator has never been one of them,

Exactly.

And this is why you will need to look elsewhere for realism and fidelity. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Ricardo41

[WestAir 2,522]

9 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

What is this supposed to yield?

We're not looking solutions, we're discussing. This is a discussion board, after all...

[Adamski_NZ 952]

I'm not *too* bothered about phraseology, but what really gets me is:

1) Regardless of how long you sit in the planning screen with Live weather enabled (and updated wind direction visible) ATC sends you to the wrong runway for take off. I have Unreal Weather also confirming the same wind conditions and still ATC insists on giving me a tailwind take off.

2) On approach, ATC totally ignores any altitude constraints and insists on flying you into hills.

3) Usually gets the approach wind direction/landing runway wrong as well.

This makes ATC pretty well 100% unusable, IMHO - and puts MSFS 2020 firmly into the "game" genre, as opposed to "Sim".

[Noel 4,497]

I don't understand why it can't read your selected approach route, assess what the terrain is on that path, and route you accordingly w/ a minimum clearance altitude.  Instead it's yoyo until you lose your lunch or crash into a mountain side.  I guess the solution is to input your altitude at different legs in your approach, but that requires charts.  I'd be happy if it would kindly give me descent guidance that fit the conditions it just does not sound that hard IF THE ROUTE IS KNOWN, and it sure is for my IFR flights w/ the G3000.  I think it can technically be improved for sure, but quite frankly I really don't like the concatenated speech.  It's amazing to think w/ FSX it was recorded strings in large part wasn't it?  Whatever it was it sounded way more like real ATC that what is in MSFS now.  This is my chief disappointment save not being ready for FSCaptain and PMDG 777.

Edited February 1, 2021 by Noel

[GSalden 4,656]

Eyecandy is the main feature of MSFS. Then the rest.

Keep in mind that MSFS wil also be for the X Box. Those players like to fly around in general and are probably less interested in correct ATC or even study level ac.

So there will be a place for 3rd party developers to bring more realism....

[pmplayer 9,449]

Yes, should be done, ( ATC Needs Complete Overhaul ) coming out a lot of nonsens most of the time..

An example i have often : Around 15 miles before landing ( allmost at Glide ) the ATC gives me a climb to 16000 feet and a minute or two later  he told me to level of to 3000 feet...??

And some more other stupid things..🤔

 

cheers 😉

[Manny 1,293]

7 hours ago, pmplayer said:

Yes, should be done, ( ATC Needs Complete Overhaul ) coming out a lot of nonsens most of the time..

An example i have often : Around 15 miles before landing ( allmost at Glide ) the ATC gives me a climb to 16000 feet and a minute or two later  he told me to level of to 3000 feet...??

And some more other stupid things..🤔

 

cheers 😉

It would be good if they add "Unable" as a response option when ATC in MSFS does that. I usually ignore such directive and may even cancel IFR. 

[Noel 4,497]

10 hours ago, GSalden said:

Eyecandy is the main feature of MSFS. Then the rest.

Keep in mind that MSFS wil also be for the X Box. Those players like to fly around in general and are probably less interested in correct ATC or even study level ac.

So there will be a place for 3rd party developers to bring more realism....

The term, "eyecandy" in my mind is oft used as a denegration of sorts, as if the entire package was only visuals and that visuals are really just 'fluff'.  The immersion that comes from flying thru atmosphere and scenery that mimics the real world, versus landclass-based stuff we have in FSX/P3D is huge for me.  The only downside with MSFS as it stands today for me is something I mentioned very early on:  there isn't quite enough stuff to do, and that's really the heart of it versus something like P3D.  If I had to fly P3D w/ a simple default airliner, without GSX, without FSCaptain, I'd have quit a long time ago.  But that is not the case w/ MSFS, despite no GSX, no FSCaptain, and no PMDG airliners.  IOW, that 'eye candy' plays a giant role in the draw and staying power of MSFS.  It helps that the default airplanes are really as good as they are relative to the default garbage in P3D.

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

This is why I use Pilot2ATC. Cost almost as much as MSFS basic in itself. ( And no, you don't need a mic to use it!)