1 hour ago, virtuali said:

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,

I disagree, you are missing an important point: The "real world data" can only be used by those with a Navigraph subscription. You can bet that the vast majority of Navigraph subscribers actually uses Navigraph charts during the flight. So if ATC gives correct instructions and the user sees the taxiways on the charts, but then finds out there's no taxiway modelled in the sim at a certain point, he automatically concludes that his scenery is outdated / wrong - I mean he just saw on the charts that ATC instructions are perfectly fine. Why would they be frustrated with SI? People are not frustrated on Vatsim either when the Vatsim ground controllers gives you taxi instructions and the scenery doesn't match. Again, to emphasize that: What SI does here is *exactly* the same what happens on Vatsim.

What *does* frustrate is when ATC gives you taxi instructions that do *not* fit the charts, just because the scenery has them. How is the user supposed to follow the taxi route when he has no idea where the taxiways are because they are not on his charts? That's when the user becomes frustrated by the fictional taxi instructions and just taxies on his own discretion.

the best approach in long term for this is something what pilot2atc does well is user custom taxiway runways mapping option so you can share those custom files created by community to import those in your atc database, you can see some of this share files in flightsim.to is a freeware solution and users don't have to spend more money on subceptions 

Would be great if more people who like ATC’d flight would use VATSIM.

It’s like a virtuous circle: the more people who use it, the busier (ie, better) it gets and the more controllers will want to come online for the challenge.

Obviously it isn’t comprehensive etc but if you pick the right time and the right route you can get a great ATC experience interacting with real people - some of them (I believe) real-world ATC controllers. 

Plus … flight sim + actual human interaction = win-win: we get to use the lovely kit without turning into complete computer-hugging sociopaths. OK it’s too late for me but there’s still hope for the rest of you guys 😉 

Edited May 11, 20242 yr by tfm

13 minutes ago, michdb8 said:

the best approach in long term for this is something what pilot2atc does well is user custom taxiway runways mapping option so you can share those custom files created by community to import those in your atc database, you can see some of this share files in flightsim.to is a freeware solution and users don't have to spend more money on subceptions 

This is not the best approach, because it fully depends on the size of the user base. SI will always have a small userbase due to the exorbitant price, so many airports will never be done. Also people never update those files they uploaded, e.g. when the taxiways change or get added/removed; so the files will be outdated after a couple of months.
How do I know? I am the one who published the larger part of the P2ATC files on flightsim.to. And I can only do that, because I use makerunways to read the scenery data and then adjust/fix afterwards. If I had to do every airport from ground (like one would have to do in SI), I'd not be doing it, it's just too much hassle. Doing EGLL or LEMD manually is a nightmare and takes half a day at least.

8 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

This is not the best approach, because it fully depends on the size of the user base. SI will always have a small userbase due to the exorbitant price, so many airports will never be done. Also people never update those files they uploaded, e.g. when the taxiways change or get added/removed; so the files will be outdated after a couple of months.
How do I know? I am the one who published the larger part of the P2ATC files on flightsim.to. And I can only do that, because I use makerunways to read the scenery data and then adjust/fix afterwards. If I had to do every airport from ground (like one would have to do in SI), I'd not be doing it, it's just too much hassle. Doing EGLL or LEMD manually is a nightmare and takes half a day at least.

well because that editor is old and can be much better like read the scenery taxiways and later you just edit just the names   if they wrong etc and community is bigger in msfs, pilot2atc is not very popular software now if you compare with the new ones. if the developers are smart they can even share the file form and share between the different atc softwares. obligate to pay a subscription to navigraph chart   to offline users  definitely is not the solution. and i like the beyond atc approach to avoid the customer to pay even more 

57 minutes ago, tfm said:

Would be great if more people who like ATC’d flight would use VATSIM.

It’s like a virtuous circle: the more people who use it, the busier (ie, better) it gets and the more controllers will want to come online for the challenge.

Obviously it isn’t comprehensive etc but if you pick the right time and the right route you can get a great ATC experience interacting with real people - some of them (I believe) real-world ATC controllers. 

Plus … flight sim + actual human interaction = win-win: we get to use the lovely kit without turning into complete computer-hugging sociopaths. OK it’s too late for me but there’s still hope for the rest of you guys 😉 

Because it adds a whole lot of stress which people don't necessarily want during their flight. I used it a few times a few years back, but it was not a pleasing experience because of the constant worry of f*****g up. Voice-aware ATC like BATC and SI gives you the immersion without the worry. Saying that I would never pay a subscription for it, so I'll stick with the former.

Edited May 11, 20242 yr by deetee

32 minutes ago, deetee said:

Because it adds a whole lot of stress which people don't necessarily want during their flight. I used it a few times a few years back, but it was not a pleasing experience because of the constant worry of f*****g up. Voice-aware ATC like BATC and SI gives you the immersion without the worry. Saying that I would never pay a subscription for it, so I'll stick with the former.

I get that … but once you overcome the initial fear of looking like an I D I O T (the censorship on this site is hilarious: try typing that word without the spaces) it’s the edginess of being an actual participant in the real world that makes it immersive 😬

4 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

I disagree, you are missing an important point: The "real world data" can only be used by those with a Navigraph subscription.

I find bizarre you are saying I'm "missing" the important point those data can only be used by those with a subscription, and you just quoted me saying *exactly* that (the "those who pay for add-on sceneries)" part of my sentence you just quoted!

 

4 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

People are not frustrated on Vatsim either when the Vatsim ground controllers gives you taxi instructions and the scenery doesn't match. Again, to emphasize that: What SI does here is *exactly* the same what happens on Vatsim.

Another point I made too in a previous post.

When I said that, on Vatsim, where a human give instructions, there's no choice other than having the human using the latest charts (controllers can't be expected to give different instructions depending which scenery the user has installed), but an ATC software CAN choose to use different data, that's a key difference where the AI ATC here has a chance to be even better than Vatsim.

 

4 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

What *does* frustrate is when ATC gives you taxi instructions that do *not* fit the charts, just because the scenery has them. How is the user supposed to follow the taxi route when he has no idea where the taxiways are because they are not on his charts? That's when the user becomes frustrated by the fictional taxi instructions and just taxies on his own discretion.

This is your opinion, which I don't agree with. Of course, in an "ideal world", the scenery should match real life charts, and it always did, we won't having this discussion.

Reality is they sometimes they don't and, given a choice, I'd rather be able to taxi as in real life, by looking at ground markings and vertical signs, instead of having to be forced to open a moving map (assuming my airplane has it and it *is* connected to Navigraph) and disregard the outside world, because I *fear* the scenery might be outdated.

Your initial point about "real data can only be used by those with a Navigraph subscription" only makes my point: what about those users? If they don't even *have* real world charts, they'll just hear confusing ATC directions without even knowing why. Which makes even more useful to have the OPTION to just use Simconnect Navdata, which will ensure taxi instructions from the ATC will always match the scenery.

Again: it's should be an OPTION between:

- Real-world adherence, which comes with a chance of confusing instructions. 

- Internal coherence, which means always getting instructions matching the actual visible scenery, which might be less "realistic", but less confusing. With the added bonus it doesn't even need an extra subscription to that data.

Edited May 11, 20242 yr by virtuali

I think maybe the perfect example of this issue (and likely why Virtuali in particular is brining it up).  Is that at FSDreamteam KORD, there have been some sight taxiway changes in real life since the scenery was released and even worse its a common route departing aircraft use.  What good will it be for SI to ask a pilot to taxi via this RW route if its not even a taxiway in the sim.  Wouldn't it make more sense in this situation to have taxi instructions that a pilot can physically follow without driving over the grass in the scenery?

1 hour ago, nrunning24 said:

Wouldn't it make more sense in this situation to have taxi instructions that a pilot can physically follow without driving over the grass in the scenery?

How are you going to do that if the charts show something different than what you see? How do you find that uncharted taxiway? Drone around the airport and try to find the correct signs? I doubt people would do that. If they don't see the mentioned taxiway in the charts, they'll probably just say "f*** it BATC has got it wrong, I'll get rolling and find my own taxiway"

5 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

This is not the best approach, because it fully depends on the size of the user base. SI will always have a small userbase due to the exorbitant price, so many airports will never be done. Also people never update those files they uploaded, e.g. when the taxiways change or get added/removed; so the files will be outdated after a couple of months.
How do I know? I am the one who published the larger part of the P2ATC files on flightsim.to. And I can only do that, because I use makerunways to read the scenery data and then adjust/fix afterwards. If I had to do every airport from ground (like one would have to do in SI), I'd not be doing it, it's just too much hassle. Doing EGLL or LEMD manually is a nightmare and takes half a day at least.

I use PF3 for ATC, and everytime I update the sim, or change scenery  or airports, , I run Makerunways. That way my ATC is always up to date. 

Just now, Bobsk8 said:

I use PF3 for ATC, and everytime I update the sim, or change scenery  or airports, , I run Makerunways. That way my ATC is always up to date. 

That's what I basically do for P2ATC, but the base data from the scenery is 90% faulty and has missing taxiway links or even worse no taxiways at all. This is all payware, by the way. Only elite devs like FlyTampa or Flightbeam have flawless taxi data in their sceneries. Not sure about PF3, but if there's a vital link missing in P2ATC, it cannot create a taxi path and you might just hear "taxi to runway". Really frustrating. So I end up fixing the imported data manually every time for new sceneries and it's just too much hassle in the year of 2024.

1 hour ago, Fiorentoni said:

How are you going to do that if the charts show something different than what you see? How do you find that uncharted taxiway? Drone around the airport and try to find the correct signs? I doubt people would do that. If they don't see the mentioned taxiway in the charts, they'll probably just say "f*** it BATC has got it wrong, I'll get rolling and find my own taxiway"

Sure if your looking at current charts that's a separate problem.  The reality is there is no "right way" to do this in all circumstances.  My personal opinion is that Its should default to what is on your MSFS simulator, but obviously there could be situations where that also gets complicated.

20 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. 

Thats not what they said at all

20 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. 

Thats not what they said at all