Say Intentions integrates Navigraph taxi data and more

[Bobsk8 12,884]

46 minutes ago, hs118 said:

My post from the other thread for those following this one:

If you want to see how real world ATC works, watch one of Matt Guthmiller's TBM videos. It is definitely not scripted nor "on rails". PilotEdge, using real world controllers and a limited geographic scope, are the only simulator ATC service that can currently provide this level of accuracy. SayIntentions is attempting to provide this level of ATC to the whole geographic globe. It is a very ambitious project.

The pricing structure of PilotEdge and SayIntentions are very similar. It is not cheap to provide real world ATC to the simulator. SayIntentions has a better chance of lowering the costs however.

If you never wanted to try PilotEdge or tried it and didn't like it, you are probably not a part of the market for SayIntentions (no matter what their final price or capability will be).

If the majority of your sim flying is tubeliners to big airports, scripted ATC such as BeyondATC, Pilot2ATC, etc are great solutions. If, however, you fly GA VFR or IFR you will not be satisfied with many of these software. (Pilot2ATC is the best of this bunch for GA VFR but still not able to handle all the real world possibilities in VFR flight).

My humble opinion, vote with your dollar and quit whining about cost if the solution doesn't match your practices. Thanks for listening to my TED talk.

 

I tired Pilot Edge for about 4 months. Same controllers, all the time, ground, departure, center, approach, same person, same voice. you just change frequencies and pretend it is a different person. No immersion at all. 

[hs118 731]

34 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I tired Pilot Edge for about 4 months. Same controllers, all the time, ground, departure, center, approach, same person, same voice. you just change frequencies and pretend it is a different person. No immersion at all. 

@Bobsk8 Full disclosure: It has been about 2 years since I've used PilotEdge. Prior to that I have a subscription for 2 years.

You have a point about PilotEdge. Not many real world air traffic controllers want a second job dealing with even more inexperienced pilots 🙂

Did you never hear a pilot get some "training" from a controller? Or have a pilot request a weather deviation? I've heard both of these on PilotEdge a few times. Something that doesn't occur on the scripted ATC products but happens everyday in real world aviation. 

Again, my point, vote with your dollars about what you consider your best experience. Try the demo, if it works for you, subscribe. There are just way too many folks whining about the price without understanding the feature set.

Sincerely thanks for your input about PE.

[virtuali 4,446]

Listened to the video (the part about taxiways), and there are some information which are definitely inaccurate.

Somebody on chat asked "how GSX follow me car can get taxiway data from the sim", and the reply was that yes, GSX get taxiway data from the sim, but it won't get the names, which is not a problem since it doesn't need to show the names, while an ATC cannot possibly work without knowing the taxiway names.

This is factually incorrect, since GSX DOES get full information about taxiways, including their names, because it IS provided with Simconnect Navdata:

https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Programming_Tools/SimConnect/API_Reference/Facilities/SimConnect_AddToFacilityDefinition.htm#taxi_path

This can be seen at work in GSX, when you are doing a custom pushback route, and you press the "Label" button in the pushback slot: GSX will try to recognize if the pushback route ends on a Taxiway and, if it does, it will automatically create a label saying something like "Facing West, on Taxi N", so it clearly knows about taxiway names from the sim own Navdata.

This opens up the old issue: it's best to get data from THE SIM or from an (usually better) EXTERNAL SOURCE ?

While for normal navigation, it might work in either case (your FMC might contains data more updated than the actual scenery, but it will still fly the airplane), when Airports are involved, both default or 3rd party, if you use updated real world data, it might be "better" than the scenery you are using, and with taxiways it might be very confusing. A known problem for those flying online: the Vatsim controller has updated charts, and shows some taxiways, which might not exists or might have changed in the scenery you have installed. This because, updating a 3rd party scenery with probably fully custom ground textures is MUCH slower than "just" getting the latest AIRAC, so your 3rd party scenery will almost always be behind the real world, particularly in those nasty airports which are "forever" under construction. I think I know that very well, since all the work we had to do (and we STILL need to do) to keep our KORD scenery up to date, and right now it isn't, and some *taxiways* need to be updated.

While it's difficult to suggest another approach when flying online, an AI ATC which is supposed to be an alternative to flying online, might have the chance to decide to be COHERENT with the scenery you are using, by just sticking to the Navdata from the sim, which I believe it's the more reliable approach, even if might not be the most realistic approach.

I'm thinking about the upcoming World Hub: one of the main thing users are supposed to do with it (since it's not very powerful) is precisely to FIX taxiways and parking data on default airports, which is a workload that would just be impossible for Microsoft to do themselves (and keep it updated), hence the idea of the World Hub, which in a  few years should allow MSFS to provide with better airport data.

If I were the developer, I would consider giving users the OPTION to either use the Navdata API from the sim (so the ATC will just use and show what you are seeing in the sim) OR a better external data source, like Navigraph, so users might decide if they'd rather had coherency with a scenery they might *know* is not fully updated, but they would still prefer to use it.

Edited May 10 by virtuali

[turbomax 3,308]

6 minutes ago, virtuali said:

If I were the developer, I would consider giving users the OPTION to either use the Navdata API from the sim ..... OR a better external data source, like Navigraph,

just what LittleNavMap does. you can choose between all kinds of airport data: MSFS 2020, x-plane, Navigraph, Prepar3D, ....

and LittleNavMap shows all taxiway names, not just taxiway Alpha or Bravo.

[Flic1 1,003]

35 minutes ago, virtuali said:

If I were the developer, I would consider giving users the OPTION to either use the Navdata API from the sim (so the ATC will just use and show what you are seeing in the sim) OR a better external data source, like Navigraph, so users might decide if they'd rather had coherency with a scenery they might *know* is not fully updated, but they would still prefer to use it.

It sounded to me like you will have the option to use other user's custom taxiway updates once that app is released.  You could have a profile for FSDT KORD, Navigraph version, etc and you will be able to choose which profiles you want.  At least that's how I interpreted it...

[virtuali 4,446]

2 hours ago, turbomax said:

just what LittleNavMap does. you can choose between all kinds of airport data: MSFS 2020, x-plane, Navigraph, Prepar3D, ....

and LittleNavMap shows all taxiway names, not just taxiway Alpha or Bravo.

Yes but, as far as I know, LittleNavMap reads the airports .BGL files and then creates its own database, and that comes with both advantages and disadvantages:

- Reading scenery files works offline, so there's no need to connect to the sim (required if you need to use the Simconnect Navdata API), which is an advantage for a flight planner, since you might not necessarily run it together with the sim.

- On the other hand, not using the Navdata, means you are not compatible with Marketplace sceneries, which are encrypted, and the only way to obtain their data, is the Navdata API.

We experienced both situations, because GSX *used* to read .BGL files before the Navdata API came out, so it didn't work on Marketplace airports *unless* the scenery developer provided you with an unencrypted version of the airport file, now it's no longer an issue, and we always get the data from the sim directly, no matter if it's encrypted or not.

[Fiorentoni 4,417]

Really, that "create your custom taxiways for airports which have none!" has been done by P2ATC 10 years ago... and it's even much quicker there since you can just use MakeRunways to read the scenery files. The user base of SI is too small (and will always remain small, because of the price) to really crowd source taxiways.

[hs118 731]

3 hours ago, virtuali said:

Listened to the video (the part about taxiways), and there are some information which are definitely inaccurate.

@virtuali my spidey sense did go off when Brian@SayIntentions made his statements in the video. It reminded of a comment reply from Matt Nischan on another thread about the completeness of the taxi data in the default MSFS database. Based on what I have seen (and will show), the overall taxiway situation is perhaps more complex than either you, Matt, or Brian have described.

Yes, there is taxiway data AND taxiway labels in the MSFS default database. However, in many, many cases I've seen, the labels are incorrect. Below is an example KIPL which is an airport I am very familiar with thru several sim versions including FSX, P3D, MSFS and XPlane. Note the taxiway labels are not only incorrect but they are incomplete.

I'm assuming that taxiways in the bespoke airports, and, of course, 3rd party sceneries are correctly labeled and can be accessed.

PS An interesting side question you pose about how the underlying data might match up with the users views. This was certainly an issue in P3D default airports vs Navigraph.

First below, KIPL from the default database vs. FAA airport diagram

Second below, KIPL with Navigraph vs. FAA airport diagram

Edited May 10 by hs118

[virtuali 4,446]

52 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

even much quicker there since you can just use MakeRunways to read the scenery files

If they are not encrypted ( no Marketplace, then ). The Navdata API solves that.

[virtuali 4,446]

59 minutes ago, hs118 said:

Based on what I have seen (and will show), the overall taxiway situation is perhaps more complex than either you, Matt, or Brian have described.

I never made a judgement on the quality of the taxiway data in MSFS, we all know it's lacking. But, this is might be fixed with add-on airports, which are usually accurate to they day they came out, so the issue of those scenery being constantly updated might be relevant or not, depending on the airport: some airports haven't changed their taxiways in years, others change them very often so, whether the airport developer will keep up (assuming it's even needed) it's another matter but, it's clear that updating an airport is more complex than updating the Navdata.

Fact users will see different data in the sim (because of different sceneries they have installed) compared to real world is not really a side issue. It's THE issue, the point I was trying to make was, do you rather have:

- Accuracy to real world charts, but possibly confusing ATC directions because that taxiway is just not there in the scenery?

- Internal coherence, so you'll get less realistic taxiway routings, but they will MATCH what you see in the sim, so you will get consistent (albeit not "real ) taxi routings ?

My *personal* preference would be internal consistency, but that's just me, that's why it should be an option between Navdata API or external data.

Edited May 10 by virtuali

[UAL4life 243]

Just proves all the BATC saying that it’s impossible to get the proper Taxi data and blaming issues customers have been having with that on users is unfounded to say the least. 

[nrunning24 159]

3 hours ago, UAL4life said:

Just proves all the BATC saying that it’s impossible to get the proper Taxi data and blaming issues customers have been having with that on users is unfounded to say the least. 

They aren't saying its impossible, they said they want to match what you see in the sim.  If you have a default airport where the taxiway A is technically B on real world charts, they want to call it A since that is what you will see on the signs outside your window.  This has nothing to do with ability to get the data, all about making sure their instructions match what you see out your airplane.  Any 3rd party airport shouldn't be effected as long as the developer codded the correct taxiways.

[SayIntentionsAI 26]

11 hours ago, virtuali said:

Listened to the video (the part about taxiways), and there are some information which are definitely inaccurate.

Somebody on chat asked "how GSX follow me car can get taxiway data from the sim", and the reply was that yes, GSX get taxiway data from the sim, but it won't get the names, which is not a problem since it doesn't need to show the names, while an ATC cannot possibly work without knowing the taxiway names.

This is factually incorrect, since GSX DOES get full information about taxiways, including their names, because it IS provided with Simconnect Navdata:

https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Programming_Tools/SimConnect/API_Reference/Facilities/SimConnect_AddToFacilityDefinition.htm#taxi_path

This can be seen at work in GSX, when you are doing a custom pushback route, and you press the "Label" button in the pushback slot: GSX will try to recognize if the pushback route ends on a Taxiway and, if it does, it will automatically create a label saying something like "Facing West, on Taxi N", so it clearly knows about taxiway names from the sim own Navdata.

 

I'm the person who made the claim in the video. And I sincerely apologize if it was misunderstood.  I'm confused, though, how your approach, or the correction here, is relevant to what we're doing, if the taxiway names are wrong in the in-sim data (which they are). The point I was making is that getting the data from the sim (like you guys do) isn't helpful for us, because the labels are wrong. They don't match the real world charts.

To clarify, the issue we have now, without the use of third-party data (like Jeppessen, or crowd-sourcing the data), is that if we extract it from the sim, and then give those instructions to the pilots (which is what we've been doing since launch day), the instructions they receive in no way match the charts they're using from ForeFlight, NG, and other real-world data.

"Haha.. it told me to taxi via alpha, bravo. But I fly out of this airport all the time, and this airport doesn't even HAVE an alpha or a bravo".

I will, of course, provide a correction to my comment in our next video.. though I'm scratching my head a little about how it's relevant to the situation I was describing. (I feel like I'm missing something, and if I am, then I sincerely apologize and I'm very much open to learning more).

EDIT: I've now read the full thread and I think I get the nuance now. 

While we respect the decision of others to honor the "in-sim situation" and make it so that the signs match the instructions, we want the instructions to match the real-world charts. (This is how ATC works in real life, and it's how ATC works with VATSIM, PE, and others staffed by humans).  This also means that we don't have to defend our "source of truth". (Our desired source of truth IS the truth).

I'm not sure there's a 100% right answer -- but until that magical day when everything matches the real world, all decisions are compromise to varying degrees. Pick your. poison I guses.

 

Edited May 11 by SayIntentionsAI

[Ricardo41 5,959]

Does SayIntentions respond with regional accents where appropriate?

[virtuali 4,446]

3 hours ago, SayIntentionsAI said:

To clarify, the issue we have now, without the use of third-party data (like Jeppessen, or crowd-sourcing the data), is that if we extract it from the sim, and then give those instructions to the pilots (which is what we've been doing since launch day), the instructions they receive in no way match the charts they're using from ForeFlight, NG, and other real-world data.

"Haha.. it told me to taxi via alpha, bravo. But I fly out of this airport all the time, and this airport doesn't even HAVE an alpha or a bravo".

You can say exactly the same in reverse: if you don't extract data from the sim, the instructions received won't match what users SEE in the *actual* scenery, if that scenery is not up to date to real world, which happens very often because, while it's reasonably easy to get updated Navdata from various providers (you either pay, or require your users to pay by having a separate subscription), updating sceneries is way more complex, and it's even more complex the more detailed they are.

Default airports, with all their flaws, are *easier* to update (and we'll see it after World Hub comes out), because the "data" directly drives the visual generation, so you add/move a taxiway, and will be moved both in the navdata and visually (you'll only need to fix vertical signage), but fully customized 3rd party add-ons, which feature completely custom background photoreal images, with multiple layers of custom ground textures, ground markings and vertical signs (possibly fully customized), take much longer to update, so it's very common for the scenery not to be up to date to real world.

In these situations, not taking data from the sim, will force users to taxi basically ignoring what they see outside, and stick on the map, assuming the airplane *has* a moving map feature which is connected to updated Navdata, like one with Navigraph integration. Taxiing this way, even if might be "realistic", is not very fun, and it's quite frustrating not being able to rely on the various ground markings or vertical signs, because you KNOW that, if the ATC gave you a taxi routing based on real world, you can't be 100% sure the scenery will match.

What I can tell you for sure is: if you stick to the decision of using only real world data, lots of users (those who pay for add-on sceneries) will only be frustrated by having a bad experience on the scenery they bought, and saying "the ATC always says the truth", even if it's technically correct, it's not helping to improve the usability, and if you think all hundreds/thousands of add-on sceneries will be eventually updated, it's really a lost battle: scenery developers are usually busy with the next scenery rather than update the old ones, because it's the next scenery that brings money to stay alive, and in some cases, it might not even possible to update, because new aerial images might not be available yet, there are many reasons why sceneries are out of date but, regardless of the reasons, they usually ARE.

That's why I suggested to offer the OPTION to use Navdata from Simconnect, at least on ground, where the relationship with Navdata with the actual visible scenery (and its eventual disagreement) is more distracting.

Edited May 11 by virtuali