23 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Flew Vatsim for a few years, cleared for an ILS when you are 5 miles from the runway at 13,000 feet is not my idea of "consistent quality" ATC. 

Sure. ATC operators on Vatsim are humans. They make mistakes (just like in real life). Generative AI doesn't just "make mistakes" it simply goes apes*it because of its training and the shortcomings of its nature, and that's a much more pervasive and very likely lasting problem.

It's also something I find highly immoral, but that's an entirely different can of worms and MSFS itself isn't immune from that issue.

But again if that's good for you, that's fantastic. Alongside the lack of real-time traffic, it simply isn't good for me. 

Edited November 10, 20241 yr by Abriael

FSHUD using AIG flight plans and models finally shifted me away from PF3 after more years than I can count.  

For me it is the best compromise of still utilizing AIG flight plans and models with a decent ATC system.

With that said it seems this is still one area that is still better served by 3rd party developers than MS has ever achieved in any of their releases and it doesn't sound like the release of 24 will change that (although I am hoping they are leveraging some of them for the '24 traffic system!) so simply hoping the current solutions work without too much additional development work and I will be happy.   

Not even getting into how GenAI and using LLM's for ATC in MSFS is immoral 🤔

Edited November 10, 20241 yr by psolk

4 hours ago, Abriael said:

since all home computer simulators are games

In that case, every flight simulator is a game because it isn't reality.

4 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

Well until BeyondATC can talk to that traffic, I'm not using it.

Even default ATC talks to the traffic.  I hope MS/A ups it a few notches

19 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

In that case, every flight simulator is a game because it isn't reality.

That's right.  Until your fanny is truly on the line you're just playing pretend.   It's first and foremost a GAME.   And its genre is SIMULATION.

As for learning value there is going to be nearly as much one can learn as a budding wannabe RW pilot in MSFS 2024 as there will be in any other flight simulator game.  Given the right planes and we have plenty now and w/ the advanced FD and weather effects and so much more it's really the superior game within the genre.

2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

In that case, every flight simulator is a game because it isn't reality.

Every flight simulator that you use at home is indeed a game, just like every racing simulator you use at home is a game. Every farming simulator. Every train simulator. Every forklift simulator, etcetera. Not being reality is irrelevant. The home use is relevant. 

Flight simulators are great, but they're not special. 

Edited November 11, 20241 yr by Abriael

4 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

In that case, every flight simulator is a game because it isn't reality.

No simulators are real, but they do simulate real conditions.  A simulator is not a game, at least not according to the dictionary definitions:

simulator [noun] : one that simulates
especially : a device that enables the operator to reproduce or represent under test conditions phenomena likely to occur in actual performance

game [noun]: an activity that you do to have fun, often one that has rules and that you can win or lose

Having said all that, I think it really depends on how you use a flight sim.  Like any other tool, you can misuse it [like treating it like a game], but you can also use it as a learning/practice simulator for flight.

 

 

11 hours ago, Abriael said:

Because part of simulating aircraft operations includes simulating the world in a dynamic, ever-changing state. If I simulate the same flight today and tomorrow, I should not find myself in exactly the same situation.......

When I see a flight departing, I like to know that same flight is departing in real life, at the same time........

 

Tend to agree. By way of example, I use FSLTL and landed at NZAA (Auckland, NZ) in a recent session, with taxi to gate instructions from default ATC.  The real world Triple 7 that landed in front of me was stopped on the taxiway and just remained there. ATC of course was of no help so I mooched around a few taxiways until I found a way round him. I looked at  FR24 and sure enough, there he was stopped in that spot and he stayed there for 25mins. I assume this real world flight was waiting for a gate to clear and while he eventually proceeded, FSLTL had long ago binned the flight. It's good to experience these real world issues and adds to the immersion but at the same time it highlights the uselessness of default ATC to deal with it. 

In another example which I may have mentioned before, I often get auto parts imported from a supplier in the US. They arrive into NZAA on Fedex 75 (FDX 75). More than once I have been taxying and heard and seen this flight either landing or sitting on the cargo ramp and I go..."oh look, my parts have arrived!"  without thinking for a moment that this is just a simulator.  That's the sort of real time immersion FSLTL can provide  against other options that can't necessarily do that. Of course, each to his own. 

Cheers

Terry       

A couple more thoughts… If I recall correctly, the default ATC could be fairly good with a few tweaks.

For example, it did assign an approach and runway on arrival, for IFR flights, but the issue was that it was completely random from the available runways and approaches available rather than using some logic. All that’s needed here is a bit of added logic and data to fix this. You don’t need generative AI, although maybe generative AI has the data needed. I dunno. 

The other main issue it has was giving nonsensical altitudes on approach. This could also be fixed with some very basic VNAV type coding. Or even just checking that the new instruction is contradictory to the last. I mean it’s not hard to suppress an instruction to climb to 10000 feet if I’m on approach that requires me to be at 3000 feet. Again, you don’t need generative AI for this, just a tiny bit of logic. 

What is probably a bit more challenging issue to solve is not flying planes into the terrain, but if the ATC just stuck to published approaches and departures that wouldn’t be an issue either. The data is all there… in the flight planer… it just needs to be integrated with the ATC. 

In summary, I think the ATC could be significantly better with minimal added investment. And you don’t need Generative AI to solve its top problems. 

ps. Without functional and reliable ATC, you cannot properly simulate IFR flight, which is why I consider this more of a game than a simulator. It doesn’t help my opinion that some of the new features in 2024 seem to be leaning in on the gamification of it while fundamental flight simulation systems are ignored. But that’s just my view. 
 

 

13 hours ago, psolk said:

FSHUD using AIG flight plans and models finally shifted me away from PF3 after more years than I can count.  

For me it is the best compromise of still utilizing AIG flight plans and models with a decent ATC system.

 

With the latest release of FSHud version 2, traffic can be controlled by FSHud however it has been injected - FSLTL Injector, AIG Traffic Controller, MSFS in-built real time traffic, MSFS Offline Traffic, etc. It also still has its own injectors for AIG and BGL based traffic. In short, you decide which type of traffic you want, and FSHud will take control of it, and will do so whilst providing traffic separation etc.

16 hours ago, Abriael said:

Sure. ATC operators on Vatsim are humans. They make mistakes (just like in real life). Generative AI doesn't just "make mistakes" it simply goes apes*it because of its training and the shortcomings of its nature, and that's a much more pervasive and very likely lasting problem.

It's also something I find highly immoral, but that's an entirely different can of worms and MSFS itself isn't immune from that issue.

But again if that's good for you, that's fantastic. Alongside the lack of real-time traffic, it simply isn't good for me. 

My knowledge of generative AI is very limited, so I was hoping you would be able to clarify the following: is GenAI and real-time traffic mutually exclusive? 

I'm happy at the moment using offline AIG flight plans as I rarely have the sim time set to real time. And although ATC addons have their quirks, they keep improving. IMO being able to interact with ATC and hear and see other traffic adds to the immersion.

2 hours ago, ConstVoid said:

With the latest release of FSHud version 2, traffic can be controlled by FSHud however it has been injected - FSLTL Injector, AIG Traffic Controller, MSFS in-built real time traffic, MSFS Offline Traffic, etc. It also still has its own injectors for AIG and BGL based traffic. In short, you decide which type of traffic you want, and FSHud will take control of it, and will do so whilst providing traffic separation etc.

Yep, well aware but thank you in case I wasn't!  I never assume to know it all.

I use FSHUD injection for takeoff/landing.  It means FSHUD handles separation, traffic flows etc however in flight I enable AIGTC as I find there is a discrepancy between the number of AIGTC flights vs FSHUD flights.  AIG just injects far more traffic than FSHUD so I have beenusing a hybrid model of the two together.  

BTW, Are people really here debating if this is a game or a sim still?  

Edited November 11, 20241 yr by psolk

5 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

is GenAI and real-time traffic mutually exclusive? 

No

From what I see, BATC would be a better choice (no subs, faster, better regional accents...) but I would still love to purchase Entourage.

It says on their webpage that Entourage is compatible with any ATC software, did anyone tried those together? No conflict at all?

Also, how is BATC handling VFR?

2 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

My knowledge of generative AI is very limited, so I was hoping you would be able to clarify the following: is GenAI and real-time traffic mutually exclusive? 

No. Beyond ATC decided to go with non-real time traffic. I was talking specifically about BATC. Since they use basically the equivalent of automatically generated schedules and not real-time traffic, that's a deal breaker for that product for me. 

9 hours ago, Virtual-Chris said:

ps. Without functional and reliable ATC, you cannot properly simulate IFR flight, which is why I consider this more of a game than a simulator. It doesn’t help my opinion that some of the new features in 2024 seem to be leaning in on the gamification of it while fundamental flight simulation systems are ignored. But that’s just my view. 

And it's an incorrect view. The whole "gamification" idea is ludicrous and silly. The career mode is nothing more than a campaign, which military flight simulators (yes even hardcore ones like DCS) have had since the beginning of time. It's a *simulation* of other aspects of a pilot's duties. It has nothing to do with "gamification." Last time I checked, pilots don't just fly from A to B for no reason. 

As for "ATC could be significantly better with minimal added investment. And you don’t need Generative AI to solve its top problems." that's as ridiculous as it comes when it has to apply to tens of thousands of airports all with different conditions. 

12 hours ago, Arwen said:

No simulators are real, but they do simulate real conditions.  A simulator is not a game, at least not according to the dictionary definitions:

simulator [noun] : one that simulates
especially : a device that enables the operator to reproduce or represent under test conditions phenomena likely to occur in actual performance

[noun]: an activity that you do to have fun, often one that has rules and that you can win or lose

Having said all that, I think it really depends on how you use a flight sim.  Like any other tool, you can misuse it [like treating it like a game], but you can also use it as a learning/practice simulator for flight.

 

 

Home simulators are not "devices." 

Also, "dictionary" arguments tend to be used disingenuously because people just use the definition that fits their arguments excluding all others.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/video-game

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/game

video game: a game in which the player controls moving pictures on a screen by pressing buttons

and game: an entertaining activity or sport, especially one played by children, or the equipment needed for such an activity:

Home flight simulators are video games. They have been since the very beginning of the genre and they have never not been games. 

It's hilarious that you don't usually get people trying to argue that they aren't gaming in other simulation genres. Only some flight simulation enthusiasts try so hard to persuade others and themselves that they're not doing it for fun but for some sort of absolutely serious and 100% professional reason. 🤣

Edited November 11, 20241 yr by Abriael