Sign in to follow this  
Guest mickp

ATC Improvement?

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

IMO, the current ATC system is adaquate for GA IFR operations, and also simulates VFR ATC well. However, for airliner/heavy iron operations, I think that SIDs/STARs would be the big one to add. I know that there are workarounds to fly STARs, but it would be nice to have those procedures in the ATC system itself, like the approaches are. This also gives rise to an 'updatable' nav database in FS, where the user could update procedures to current ones. Proper AI separation procedures would also be nice, like getting s-turns or speed restrictions for spacing. This is just my wishlist for ATC. I'm not ripping on FSX or anything like that.That being said, I'm not holding my breath to see if any of these get implemented next version. One of the PMs has already said that it's unlikely that any major refinements to the ATC system are forthcoming. I do wonder, though, if FSX had a significantly improved ATC system, if more people would have embraced FSX, even with the current performance issues. I still think that FSX is the future, especially after DX10 hardware is mainstream and Vista has its issues worked out. Time will tell, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic problem is that ATC is not an addon which can be changed easily. It is an integral part of the way FS works and is programmed. Major changes in how FS works, how addons will work, how the user aircraft works are necessary to change the way the ATC works.Now, SID/ STAR - that is a two fold, and solvable, problem in my opinion.First it's a Flight Planner issue, not an ATC issue. The Flight Planner has to know what SID/STAR are and to allow them to be used in auto generated flight plans.We would probably need a 'normal mode' flight planner like we currently have and an 'advanced mode' flight planner which would work like FSBuild. Be a shame to put a good developer out of business - but that is what it would do.Secondly, there need to be substantial changes in the voice pack and adding trigger events to the flight sequence.In the US SID/STAR would have to be limited implementation - especially the STAR part because of the distance of the STARS. We cannot have FS starting approaches 300 nm from the arrival airport.That would require increasing the active AI zone by several orders of magnitude and a HUGE increase in processor cycles.But it could be implemented.However, because of the way the Approach procedures are integrated with the scenery files, updating for AIRAC cycles would not be easy, or even desirable.AI separation - FS is very good at AI separation when we do not overload the system with more AI than it is designed to handle - however, it has no mechanism to mandate AI aircraft approach speed.I understand that would require a significant increase in the cpu cycles used by the AI engine to implement.Personally I've implemented it in FSX because all my AI aircraft has identical flight dynamics - just three aircraft types fly in my world.All my small twin/triple jets fly at the same approach speed - Airbus, Boeing, Caravelle, BAC, etc. I use ONE flight dynamic for them all rather than having Airbus flying at seven different speeds based on model, Boeing at five different speeds, etc.I have a small/medium jet FD, a heavy jet FD and a turboprop FD. I do not fly AI aircraft with other FD's into heavy use airports.Now for some of the aircraft I have two versions - a 'busy airport' FD and repaints, and a 'small airport' more realistic FD and those airline repaints.Now the biggest change I want the ATC to have is a new voicepack and to say - "Cleared direct to Brons" rather than "Turn to heading 280".Another easy change I want to see. AI aircraft will fly complex and sometimes curving Offset LDA, GPS, RNAV, Circle to Land, NDB, VOR approaches under IMC.They will only fly straight in ILS and straight in visual approaches under VMC.That change should be easy to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give me back ATC at my local field. They were there in FS2002, but not in FS9 or FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am quite happy with the current ATC. It is not perfect by any means, but it's slightly improved compared to the ATC in FS2004.The default FSX ATC is good for GA flying, although I am missing some options like extended options for Unicom (to inquire about traffic patterns, if you're a sloppy planner) and CTAF, as well as more variety with the voices (more static and the microphone clicks and pops). FBO operations would be cool as well (to request fuel or repairs). Also, the handovers between controllers could be greatly improved, as well as the ATC chatter (the chatter becomes too much and unrealistic with high traffic settings).For heavy iron, Radar Contact is your choice. One little disappointment of Radar Contact does not handle ground traffic at all, so with reasonable traffic settings, it is almost guaranteed that you crash into another plane, if you don't taxi really carefully.Pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Give me back ATC at my local field. They were there in>FS2002, but not in FS9 or FSX.What is your local field? Does it have ATC in the real world? R-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>I do wonder, though, if FSX had a significantly improved ATC>system, if more people would have embraced FSX, even with the>current performance issues. >Don't forget, we are not representative of the average FS user. The avg user doesn't fly SIDs/STARs, and therefore ATC isn't an important consideration for them.I think performance is/was much more important to most people than SIDS/STARS in ATC, and performance would lead to the embrace of FSX.Not all simmers relate to SIDS/STARS. But *all* simmers relate to performance. Perf is everything--if you don't have perf, then you can't fly SIDs and STARs or add-ons like PDMG in the first place. Perf must be in place first, just like a foundation on a building.>I still think that FSX is the future, especially after DX10>hardware is mainstream and Vista has its issues worked out.>Time will tell, I suppose.Addons like Radar Contact. -- That's the reason why MS will not add any more to the ATC system at present. MS provided the basic skeleton of ATC, and lets the 3rd-party do more. Frankly I think that is a good thing...let MS focus on bigger issues like performance and DX10 (which will help 100% of users) vs. spending valuable devtime working on a better ATC system (which will only help the harder core users that would actually fly a SID or STAR).I predict that it (Vista, FSX, DX10) is going to all work out...FSX ain't no FS2000, there's no Hitlers in Redmond, and it's all, "all right". One of the big reasons it's going to work out is because of people like you and me, conversing (albeit in the limited fashion that 'net forums allow) with the very developers of FSX.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for keeping things the way they are. RC fills my desire for heavy iron ATC well (Some may note that I am also a pilot/controller voice for RC4). Just like how they should leave the ultra-realistic complex airliners/heavy jets to the 3rd party and concentrate on the areas that you mentioned above. That being said, IF ACES were to decide to overhaul the ATC system, these are what I'd like to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have said, having SIDS/STARS integrated into the stock ATC would be my first wish for any improvement to make ATC more realistic. Even though it is possible to fly departure and arrival procedures with the current system using "the workaround" method", it is a little cumbersome, and sometimes difficult as the proper waypoint needed to complete the Arrival is not always in the selected approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ISTM in most cses you could have the AI ignore the SID/STAR transitions, and just fly to/from the main fix point.The problem with RC is it doesn't control AI.I would like more control exposed to the behaviour of ATC at airport -- better means of controlling runway assignments. Maybe also some more advanced capabilities such as LAHSO. Also preferred gate assignment for user aircraft and perhaps preferred taxi routes.scott s..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Above all else it is the inane messages about reporting traffic sighting when you are in thick cloud, the traffic is behind you and well above or below you and you are flying an IFR flight plan that I would like to see eliminated. How many members just hit the "traffic in sight" response without ever actually sighting the traffic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrewsfield EGSL, and yes it does else I'm not sure who I've been talking too ;0)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the above.Also not to disconnect you if for some reason you fail to respond, though I *think* there has been a subtle change to FSX ATC over FS9 in that there is an option to resume the flightplan from the ATC menu without reloading the whole thing.The realistic steps and altitude restrictions that Radar Contact enforces, the option to take a shortcut to Final approach, not necessarily automatic accession to clearance or altitude requests. In fact, pretty much everything Radar Contact does now.Agree that may not be for everyone, but if you are using ATC at all then surely you won't mind a little extra realism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inquiring on unicom for current runway conditions has nothing to do with sloppy planning. The winds at any airport can easily change from the time you take off to the time you reach the airport. Also, if the winds are nil, then the active runway is at the whim of whoever is using it in many cases.I think that would be a cool addition, and pretty easy to implement, too.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this