BeyondATC: new video with premium voices!

[Tuskin38 6,578]

6 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Plus rules for FAA and ICAO of course with all the variations.

Next video will cover ICAO

[ConstVoid 110]

3 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

Again, the program doesn't control the AI. They can't stop that from happening.

Yes they can. Even if they don't control AI traffic they can detect it. If they detect traffic on the runway, or on short final, they can instruct you to hold short, rather than clearing you to line up and wait. Sure, there would be edge cases - you could have got there first and be cleared to line up and wait, or even to take off, before MSFS stupidly allows an AI to use the other end of the runway, but in most other cases this should be preventable.

[anden145 2,285]

Honestly I don't understand this conversation... 😕
(Oh boy, I'm probably going to get shot for this, but so be it...)

Why can someone be happy and re-joice, that finally an ATC addon is forthcoming and in development, that actually addresses some of the issues, that has 'plagued' many ATC addons for a looong time?

I really look forward to this addon, but I don't know why someone feels it's necesary, to immediately jump in, and ridiculing it by pointing out that "My (favorite) ATC application (named XXXX) doesn't do that!!", "That's completely unacceptable and a huge let down..." etc. I mean come on. No ATC addon is perfect and BeyondATC isn't even released yet! 
Personally I can find many reasons why PF3 (for instance) is imperfect (in my opinion): User interface, clunky, cumbersome to setup, robotic-voices are just a few (that I personally have). On the other hand, I love the variaty, the different accents and the developer and support is beyond excellent! 

It seems like, that BeyondATC's focus is elsewhere (for the moment) and I applaude that! But if you cannot handle that or think that's wrong or constantly needs to berate the addon, for "lacking" features, being imperfect or simply mishandling some procedures or not "doing everything as in real-life", then maybe this addon simply isn't for you?

[Lucky38i 1,100]

32 minutes ago, anden145 said:

I really look forward to this addon, but I don't know why someone feels it's necesary, to immediately jump in, and ridiculing it by pointing out that "My (favorite) ATC application (named XXXX) doesn't do that!!", "That's completely unacceptable and a huge let down..." etc. I mean come on.

This is Avsim's favourite hobby, tribalism. If it's not that, then elitism is brought out where something has to be done a certain otherwise it's wrong.

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

6 hours ago, Sethos said:

Why not wait what? You're saying they shouldn't show off their work and advertise their software because it's not the holy grail of ATC yet?

You know thats not what I meant, at all. I meant, for clarification so that you don't quote me out of context again; Why not wait for a whole completed finished product, before releasing it. Because from what I have read so far, it will be released in two parts, the first without AI control. Happy now? My oh man, you know for a fine fact what I meant.....! 

Edited July 25, 2023 by Ianrivaldosmith

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

4 hours ago, anden145 said:

and the possibility of having natural sounding ATC communications (which is not Vatsim) is - for me personally - a long awaited addition.

And for me too. However, before I was quoted out of context above, I just feel that if it doesn't interact with AI, then, for me personally, it's pointless. Not for others, and thats fine. Seems like that some people see that as whinging etc.... It's not. Should we all just sit here and say, hey it's great! A not offer and criticism....? No. It looks like a brilliant product, strides ahead in some respects, with one shortcoming, that just happens to be quote a big shortcoming. Thats all there is to it. And if it releases with some basic AI control, even better, I for one will purchase it. If it doesn't, I wont. What others do, thats up to them, 🙂 

[Sethos 4,414]

21 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

You know thats not what I meant, at all. I meant, for clarification so that you don't quote me out of context again; Why not wait for a whole completed finished product, before releasing it. Because from what I have read so far, it will be released in two parts, the first without AI control. Happy now? My oh man, you know for a fine fact what I meant.....! 

No, I don't know what you meant because it's not even releasing this year nor have they said anything about releasing it like you're saying to my knowledge.

Edited July 25, 2023 by Sethos

[bonchie 2,305]

22 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

Mmh not sure about that. Voices is only one part of the equation, what's more important is variance in WHAT is said. I mean right in beginning of the video you hear two AI aircraft calling for clearance, both with exactly the same (uncommon) phrase "Looking for IFR clearance...", also every other call seems to have the exact same words. If every call has the exact same structure, this is going to get old very fast, no matter how natural the voices are.
 

Europe is more strict on phraseology so I can't comment on that part of this, but in the US, "looking for" is very common when speaking to clearance delivery to pick up a clearance. That's exactly what I say every flight in the real world as a corporate pilot.

I think their goal is to make it sound more real-world by adding the slang you typically hear. I'm sure they'll vary it.

Edited July 25, 2023 by bonchie

[bonchie 2,305]

19 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

There's some annoying things I'm hearing hehe.... that a lot of controllers do, but is wrong.  Like saying "Taxi to runway XX"  It's "Runway XX, taxi via...."  Even pilots are reading it back now that way (it used to be taxi to runway but that was quite some years ago).

Or instead of saying "runway zero one left" they say "zero one left"  

Overall it's pretty cool - like if you make a mistake on the readback the software corrects you.

It seems like this developer's experience is 100% US based, and they are mimicking how calls in the US typically go, technically incorrect and all. They should be able to make European-centric calls as well. We'll see what the ICAO video brings.

As a broad pursuit, I like that they are making the calls more real-world and less just what's in the book. It'll take some work, but if they can vary it and do it right, it'll really be immersive (at least for real world pilots that know what real ATC sounds like).

For example, one thing they could add that's very common is reporting ride conditions as part of a check-in with a new controller. Once you get above FL300, your typical check-in is "Houston Center 838HU 330 smooth" or something of that nature. Even cooler would be if an ATC program could do what real-world controllers do, taking those ride reports and building a bigger picture to advice on cruising altitudes. That's probably impossible with current technology, though.

Edited July 25, 2023 by bonchie

[ryanbatc 12,934]

13 minutes ago, bonchie said:

It seems like this developer's experience is 100% US based, and they are mimicking how calls in the US typically go, technically incorrect and all. They should be able to make European-centric calls as well. We'll see what the ICAO video brings.

As a broad pursuit, I like that they are making the calls more real-world and less just what's in the book. It'll take some work, but if they can vary it and do it right, it'll really be immersive (at least for real world pilots that know what real ATC sounds like).

Eh...a little is fine but it shouldn't stray far from real world rules.  You can blame us I guess for the bad phraseology inspiration part of the software.  The busier we seem to be the worse the phraseology becomes in my opinion.

[snglecoil 1,828]

13 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

You can blame us I guess for the bad phraseology inspiration part of the software.

ATC is much more disciplined with phraseology in my experience. Slang is definitely more rampant on the pilot side. I know as I’ve started to operate out of ORD specifically, there is a ton of (perceived…and real) pressure to get things out as quickly as possible. So I have even started calling up with things like “2.3 for 8” even though I used to get all over my students a year ago for doing the same 🤦‍♂️

[ryanbatc 12,934]

6 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

ATC is much more disciplined with phraseology in my experience. Slang is definitely more rampant on the pilot side. I know as I’ve started to operate out of ORD specifically, there is a ton of (perceived…and real) pressure to get things out as quickly as possible. So I have even started calling up with things like “2.3 for 8” even though I used to get all over my students a year ago for doing the same 🤦‍♂️

We do the same.  We drop words like Cessna from callsigns saying three charlie papa instead of Cessna three CP all the time.  It's technically wrong for us.  We omit the word runway often especially if dealing with parallels.  I don't want software with so much slang.  In that video they said something totally over the top...like "I'm.gonna take you over the localizer and bring you back around" haha.  Should just be "vectors across final for spacing" or " expect vectors across localizer for spacing". My examples aren't even textbook but they're a lot tighter and more professional than what that stuff the video said.

I say things like good day, take care, bye when I ship you guys to a new freq but I try not to get totally off the path.

[snglecoil 1,828]

Sorry this is going to derail this thread a little, but to give some appreciation for some of the non-standard things that happened real world I’m going to do it. 
 

Huge late night push out of Atlanta, the initial departure controller was getting pilots stepping all over each other. He told everyone to standby for 20 seconds, and that he was going to do a “roll call.” 20 seconds later, he  says “Alright, here we go…everyone acknowledge with your call sign only” then proceeded to run down his strips giving a heading/fix and altitude. Every departure acknowledged with a call sign and went on without a hitch. It was one of the most effective displays of ATC prowess I’ve ever witnessed. Was that the right way to handle it? Probably not, but given the initial chaos, one might argue it was operationally justified 😁

Now imagine that scenario in the sim!

[Fiorentoni 4,273]

1 hour ago, bonchie said:

Europe is more strict on phraseology so I can't comment on that part of this, but in the US, "looking for" is very common when speaking to clearance delivery to pick up a clearance. That's exactly what I say every flight in the real world as a corporate pilot.

I think their goal is to make it sound more real-world by adding the slang you typically hear. I'm sure they'll vary it.

Well I never flew for real in the US, but I can't remember every hearing "looking for" on VATSIM over there... Anyway, yes the nuances and slang would be what really makes this uniquely immersive. Really, you can have the most natural voices in the world, but if they all say the same phrases it's just useless. I'm talking especially about comms with AI traffic.

[Noel 4,531]

3 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

My examples aren't even textbook but they're a lot tighter and more professional than what that stuff the video said.

This may well result from using AI and if not currently in the future.  Unless you only used data from textbook ATC you're going to get whatever real world speech AI is exposed to during the learning phase.