Not satisfied with MSFS ATC? Want more in FS11?

[Guest bigean]

I've read numerous posts that want improved ATC in future FS versions. I can only suggest: Buy an addon or as a final step:U S E O N L I N E A T C ! ! !Goto ivao.aero or vatsim.net and inform yourself. I've done that some 2 years ago at vatsim. Since then I flew *less than 10 times* offline but collected more than 200 hours online (couldn't do more for family reasons). Once you experienced what's going on there, you will see there's *never ever* any chance to include such a thing as an function into MSFS. Forget to hope for optimization. Online ATC is like reality, sometimes it's as busy as reality, and it's as surprising as reality. Just for people not knowing:People act as controllers. They see every FS-pilot in range on their radar screenOther people act as pilots. They fly any plane, online. They can see all other online-planes around them.They all dial the real world frequencies and then can hear and talk to the others on the same frequencies. That is, controllers instruct the pilots, pilots read back. Pilots request things, controllers grant or don't. If you are impaired or w/o microphone, you can use text.Both use up to date charts and real procedures (SID/STAR, transisions, vectors, ...)If you go to hongkong, you hear Chinese people with nice british accent. If you fly to london, you hear british. If you fly to moscow, there's metric system and russian accent. All software is free and easy to use. You don't need broadband. You just need a mike and speakers, better a headset. You will just need to pay a bit for up to date navdata (Waypoint database), which is not available free anymore from US MIL. It's some 10$ per year. That's it.If you're not happy with MSFS ATC, go there and open your heart!! I've attended an event at Frankfurt (Germany) Airport. 500 arrivals/departures at one evening with all kinds of accents within pilots, loads of holdings, a director position constantly issuing instructions, emergencies, go arounds, misunderstandings, and the lots of it. Don't wait for better ATC, you can have that already!!!Let ACES do something better meanwhile ...Bigean.

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

Live ATC is all well and good except for two aspects:- Coverage. I fly many places around the world, and much more often than not, online ATC isn't where I want it to be. Luckily FSX pushed me in the FSInn direction, which retains FS ATC when connected to VATSIM, so I get the best of both worlds.- Tossers. Some online ATC controllers are control freaks and either give stupid directions (eg. they have just logged on and you are 2 miles out on final approach to the runway you have selected based on actual winds, and they give you vectors for the oppposite approach) or forget you are there (eg. c/m 5000 after departure and you get to 5000 and sit there for a few minutes before the remember you).As annoying as the inbuilt ATC can be at times, in many instances it is the better alternative.Gary

[ryanbatc 12,803]

I have, and it needs a lot of work...For instance....there needs to be A LOT more controllers staffed and a TON more pilots flying to make it seem immersive...4 controllers with 10 planes.....boring... lolAnd like he said above, you need a strong network of controllers...so you're not flying along and oh...radar service terminated lol....no center controller for the next 400 miles...GRRR

[Guest drdaru1]

Is not ATC set on a base of rules? What is ATC but a large modular if-then statement? My point is that even though I -- and many others -- have been very outspoken about this, nothing has changed in years. The drawbacks to your "solution" are listed above, and are the same drawbacks noted before.Even small changes could do some good. An example would be a 737 on a 6 mile final. I'll bet there's not a controller out there that would say that the plane that's holding for takeoff can't get out before the next gets in. If you doubt this, go to a controlled field and listen to the ATC sometime. The ATC system isn't bad per se, it's just old and needs to be updated. I'm not saying they have to do something reminiscent of KDFW 1996 with LAHSO, but at least clean up the system.

[Guest DreamFleet]

"Is not ATC set on a base of rules? What is ATC but a large modular if-then statement?"Perhaps in an ideal world it is (and, yes, there are rules), but in the real world I fly in it is often anything but that!You would be surprised how difficult it would be to even to get to 50% realism when it comes to ATC in FS.Every time I hear folks complaining about ATC in FS, and while there no doubt may be some issues with it, the only thought that comes into my mind, and I mean no offense is:Apparently those who complain have little experience with the real thing. It is not "if-then". Sometimes it is, much of the time it's a whole different ball game.I mean, you have listened to the real ATC frequencies available on the net, right?Sure some is "by the book", but spend some good time listening and you will realize how "if-then" is more like: "If this were an ideal world, and everything were really as we think it is in FS, then..."Just listen to JFK ground/tower sometime. Do you really expect FS to simulate that?Ask for VFR advisories on a busy day in the NYC area, and see what you get. Yes, it is "if / then", but more like: "If they are not too busy, you say things right, and the controller is in a good mood, then you might get what you need".How about answers like: "No class bravo for you, I can't see you", or "No problem, I'll set ya' up".The whole world of ATC is not just IFR airline flights. The real world world of ATC is also VFR, not just IFR, and that needs to be simulated too.No offense intended, but MS could devote an entire team just to ATC, and even then not get it even to 50% the level it is in real life. It would be a daunting task.If they could, then. ;)All things considered, and considering how difficult it is to do, and for what they charge for the product, I think their ATC is not too bad at all.Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

[Mike... 7]

I am one of those people who complain about ATC. I've never said I want 100% accurate real world ATC, but surely they can make some minor improvements here and there that would result in significantly different (read better) behavior in the sim.The online alternatives may work for some, but it's just not an alternative if you want round the clock worldwide coverage.Addons are often not an alternative because they are too user focussed and don't control AI like the default ATC does.So yeah, let ACES do something about it. Or not, but then don't expect me to buy FS11 and above.

[Geofa 108]

Right on Lou-and I am glad I don't have to fly where you do.As I posted below in the other atc thread-when atc models all the screwups I have almost everytime I fly then I will consider ms atc complete!I have to say as far as online-the new multiplayer works quite good for some particular areas-but of course if you want to go anywhere in a very particular area then online can be a let down too.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Guest drdaru1]

Funny, but the rules for ATC in the real world I fly in are governed by 7110.65. Strange, but I think that if you have a set of rules... i.e. if this happens, then this should be said/done, it can be mimiced in a computer program. Funny how the guys here in ZHU have been getting it right for these past 12 years, I just thought they had rules governing how the entire ATC system works. I sit corrected.

[Guest grapesh]

As almost anything in the world, the "offline" ATC system CAN be realistically modeled. What does it need to have in addition to what is in FSX, and what will it take to implement/run?1. Regional accents. As people from ACES stated long ago, this is a matter of (a) recording every possible pronunciation and (:( disk space for all the flavors you want. My take on (a) is that if MS or a third party could provide some tools so everyone could record a complete voicepack and contribute to some organized website (a la PAI), then we all would be able to use not only different accents but also their several representatives. There is MS VoicePack SDK, so maybe someone can come up with a good interface to that, something like Phrase Checklist/Voice Recognition/Quality Control tool that can be easily used to record the whole phrase set for the voicepack.As far as (:( is concerned, a disk space is an easily expandable issue nowadays, so, if you want to download and use 100 voices instead of 5 default ones, just buy another external hard drive.2. Complexity of the ATC simulation. The ATC model is much slower than visualization, and potentially it can be run on a separate CPU(s). With advances in multi-core and distributed computations, it is quite possible now. I would be happy to use my old laptop to take some computational burden off my main PC. Also, the level of complexity can be selectable depending on your resources. If I have 4-core machine, visualization apart I should be able to compute flight plans, trajectories, and interactions for hundreds of planes simultaneously. 3. Human factor. In real life, all pilots and controllers are different in their skills and characters, and this can be seen reflected in their performance. It is an interesting subject for modeling. One approach is to model the AI pilots. AI pilots fly AI planes any time you run your FS. They log hours and experience in different weather, airports, etc. Same with ATC bots. As a result, you may generate a chance of the AI plane going missed on the ILS approach in front of you, or ATC controller providing instructions to you and other planes fast enough. You can think of many other interesting things you can do with the AI pilots. For instance, they can earn their score by flying as your co-pilots. It might be an interesting twist for virtual airlines, if you could then share "experienced" AI pilots with each other and even compete with them.... Anyway, not going too deep with that, I just want to say, that human factor CAN be modeled, with a large degree of realism; it is just a matter of computational burden, and that should be possible to offload to some extra available CPU(s). Cheers,=S.V.=eMachines T5026/P4/3.07GHz/1Gb RAM/160Gb S-ATA HDD/Windows XP Home SP2/ATI RADEON 9250 PCI 256Mb/ViewSonic VX910 19' 1280x1024/Microsoft SideWinder Force Feedback 2

[DadJokeCinema 145]

Well, what is the first step to getting better coverage if not through advertising?

[RFields5421 1]

Is not ATC set on a base of rules? What is ATC but a large modular if-then statement? As you well know when you fly - it-then doesn't work in the real world. It takes a substantial level of controller experience and judgement to juggle a tight fighting schedule.What FS has is a if-them ATC - and it can handle 15-20 aircraft per hour per runway. More than that - you overload the system.The US FAA has been working for most of the past 30 years to standardize and computerize ATC into a modular system - and they are still a couple generations away from having mainframes capable of handling all the if-then possibilites on real time basis.My point is that even though I -- and many others -- have been very outspoken about this, nothing has changed in years.FS2004 was a quantum level change from what came before. Real world approaches with transitions, the ability to manipulate the system and achieve realistic approaches and procedures.But as Microsoft discovered - that's too steep a learning curve for most of the FS community.SID/ DP is the one which always amazes me. FS ATC has you fly them perfectly - IF you know how to do a flight plan.FS has been perfect with flying SID / DP procedures since July 2003 - just most people don't put much effort into their flight planning.Perhaps FS should reject flight plans which do not meet FAA rules. Of course half this forum would be devoted to people complaining the flight planner.An example would be a 737 on a 6 mile final. I'll bet there's not a controller out there that would say that the plane that's holding for takeoff can't get out before the next gets in.That is where you run into the limitations of a IF-THEN system.FS has a very good one right now - IF the landing aircraft is cleared to land - THEN it owns the runway and no other aircraft can use it.Now if ACES rewrote the system to:IF the landing aircraft is flying at under X speed;IF the landing aircraft is X distance from the threshold;IF the takeoff aircraft flight dynamics are set correctly to allow the aircraft to position in less than two minutes;IF the takeoff aircraft is capable of accelerating at X rate;THEN allow the takeoff.Oops, the frequency is crowded with four other aircraft asking for instructions, reporting inbound on approach. The takeoff aircraft never acknowledged the takeoff clearance for 83 seconds and is just now moving onto the runway - but the landing aircraft is now 1/2 mile from touchdown.FS ATC is super cautious with clearance event triggers.For example the trigger to release the runway after a takeoff is the acknowledgement of the frequency change by the takeoff aircraft.The line-up and wait (or position and hold) introduced in FS2004 and tweaked in FSX was a big improvement.Yes, it is my opinion that the entire runway lockout sequence needs to be revised.I would also like to see AI aircraft on approach no longer have their speed controlled solely by the aircrft flight dynamics.However, how to do that without adding a huge processor load is the question.(BTW for the OP - yes those are great alternatives. Not for me and the way I usually fly - but I do join in occasionally)