Gamereactor interview with Jorg Neumann

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

4 hours ago, JBDB-MD80 said:

ATC will never be right by default

Do you have a crystal ball? Never say never. 

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

I'm amazed they don't do ATC, it's not a complex programming problem. The reason sims don't do a good ATC is because they've gotten away with it all these years so they just look at as an unnecessary expense. I mean they also are going to figure if you are using the sim for REAL training, then people will just use VatSim and nothing can come close to a real person, so in that sense they figure it's probably not useful.

I wouldn't mind a better ATC, but it's pretty low on my list of things to address to be frank. I would rather they address extra gaming functionality and land detail and improved aerial. That would help keep the SIM alive for pretty much ever.
 

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by Alpine Scenery

[urthgental 181]

I hope/expect that ATC gets a complete overhaul, fitting to their mission replacement in 2024.

All these different activities they showcased require a good com interface. PilotEdge or Vatsim are no option at all. This only works for IFR.

And this whole Azure, AI is just too good to be missed. I would be shocked if they do not implement any GPT LLM for that purpose.

Have a look at their recently anounced partnership with Inworld AI:

https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/games/articles/2023/11/xbox-and-inworld-ai-partnership-announcement/

„An AI character runtime engine that can be integrated into the game client, enabling entirely new narratives with dynamically-generated stories, quests, and dialogue for players to experience.“

And to be honest, I am a bit disappointed about the lack of communication from Microsoft about such topics. That is something to be discussed actively with the community.

Edited November 11, 2023 by urthgental

[snglecoil 1,828]

1 hour ago, Alpine Scenery said:

The reason sims don't do a good ATC is because they've gotten away with it all these years so they just look at as an unnecessary expense.

I see it differently. Real world ATC in and of itself is complex. I can’t see it being a trivial task to programmatically replicate even a basic or somewhat generic version of ATC in the real world. 

[JBDB-MD80 1,485]

6 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Do you have a crystal ball? Never say never. 

How long have we been saying This in flight siming. Grab a candy bar of your favorite and sit back "you will be waiting for a while" for realistic ATC by default. Online services available are the only way to go for realism or shut off ATC completely and follow your Nav charts.

[SierraDelta 1,355]

6 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

I'm amazed they don't do ATC, it's not a complex programming problem.

Here’s a pro tip: If you don’t know what you’re talking about - don’t post on the internet.
ATC is extremely complex.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

Are you always this pleasant?

It's really not, sorry this seems to mentally disturb you. It's a lot of work, but complex compared to other parts of MSFS, absolutely not. It is more difficult for a third-party because of the tricky integration work and lack of exposed data you need, but it's not very difficult for the creators of the original code, especially when you have direct support from the team that wrote the code base, one programmer doesn't need to know EVERYTHING in this case. When it comes to optimization issues, one programmer does pretty much need to know everything. Designing a plane from scratch with decent physics - difficult. Dealing with LOD and GPU optimization in C++ - difficult. Designing ATC - not THAT difficult. Having worked in software for many years and managed other programmers, this is something I would assign the JR or less-skilled programmers, any average programmer can do it because it's easy to revise the code and get support from others.

 

Edited November 11, 2023 by Alpine Scenery

[HiFlyer 9,372]

3 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

I have coded stuff like that many times, here is a tip, don't make comments if you don't know what you are talking about.

People who 'knew what they were talking about' informed us for years in just that tone why something with the detail of MSFS was unattainable except in limited areas of games, and how fsx/p3d/x-plane were the pinnacle of possibility.....

Not to mention that just about every 'knowledgeable source' that says one thing here, seemingly invites yet another 'knowledgeable source' to step up to say "nonsense".

Which leads to an awful lot of both real and metaphorical popcorn being eaten by denizens of these forums.

Just using occam's razor, my very casual take is that given the demand, if it were that simple to create, somebody would have surely done it by now over the last few decades.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

Agree... I'm probably not like the type of programmer that would want complex optimization work, but I would take a job designing ATC, very simple comparatively to the rest of the Asobo code base. MSFS continually impresses me, and YES, a lot of stuff is extremely complicated, ATC just isn't.

 

[MarcG 3,031]

4 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Agree... I'm probably not like the type of programmer that would want complex optimization work, but I would take a job designing ATC, very simple comparatively to the rest of the Asobo code base. MSFS continually impresses me, and YES, a lot of stuff is extremely complicated, ATC just isn't.

 

Then apply man apply!

https://jobs.eu.lever.co/asobostudio/7d481e27-5113-4cd7-98ff-326c25142c05

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

They probably want someone that has interacted with real ATC before. People often confuse complexity with tedious or having specialty knowledge. I mean entering a thousand values into a database is tedious, but it's not complex. Designing the most efficient math equation for some obscure optimization issue, that is extremely complex, even though it isn't tedious.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Alpine Scenery

[Franz007 517]

On 11/9/2023 at 10:41 PM, Krakin said:

They prefer a particular sim that.....let's just say isn't the prettiest one on the market and as a result, (because only their favorite sim can be the best, apparently) become resentful of MSFS for excelling in the graphical department. They then make it seem like good graphics indicate reduced fidelity and authenticity and anyone who appreciates a good looking sim is a filthy casual who only cares about graphics.

You may have missed the point (once again) by trying to make indirect personal attacks (once again). Never have I said that graphics weren’t important nor that another sim was the best, since this depends on what each of us will weight more and prefer for his need alone. Each have pros and cons. And I am bringing my side into play here, what i wish to see in any sim, although you obviously value other things more. And no one ever said that good graphics would mean reduced fidelity, pretty the opposite actually; better graphics increase the „visual“ fidelity. The „more gamey“ side doesn‘t come from graphics. And i don‘t want to debate that here because i think this is a widely known opinion and is like if i would try to deny that MSFS has better default graphics. It would be pointless.

[Krakin 5,840]

On 11/8/2023 at 3:38 PM, Franz007 said:

Another funny thing: exactly today, as we got that link about Asobo talking about "underwater-pebbles" as published in a game-magazine, anothee sim released a new version with improved engine-models, better landing gear physics (Wheel Inertia, Weld Modeling and ABS Revisions) and a new fuel temperature model.

This isn't you?

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

People using it as a training tool have very different wants and desires compared to people using it for entertainment. I just use it for entertainment, so visual improvements would be nice, but I also realize how hard it would be to further optimize the land detail or to post-process the aerial imagery. I just think they are probably compressing the aerial imagery too much. Using Bing at full res looks better than using Bing in MSFS (not always but at times and in certain places, not sure why but maybe the compression).

[Franz007 517]

1 minute ago, Krakin said:

This isn't you?

Can you develop the question please? I don't see your point.