5 minutes ago, Noel said:

Thank you kindly for that!  I would like to sample the full deal though, so might I be better off doing the free 24h trial?

Your call. My understand is that they are rolling out Opensky on a limited base with the idea to have it free for all but just want to monitor the server load. I personally would much more recommend the full version since it offers both VFR and IFR and all the bells and whistles and then you get a good taste of it. Then if you want just basic IFR gate to gate, get OpenSky afterwards which is free and no time limit.

Edited March 23, 20251 yr by Ident

5 minutes ago, Ident said:

Your call. My understand is that they are rolling out Opensky on a limited base with the idea to have it free for all but just want to monitor the server load. I personally would much more recommend the full version since it offers both VFR and IFR and all the bells and whistles and then you get a good taste of it. Then if you want just basic IFR gate to gate, get OpenSky afterwards which is free and no time limit.

That sounds great I will PM you my email and save it til after I've done the 24h trial.  Thanks again!

 

Fair warning too, the OpenSky version is 100% on rails. You fly your filed flight plan and that's it. No re-routes or requesting different approaches.

1 hour ago, Bobsk8 said:

I flew P3D for years, and don't remember any default ATC that worked...

No, but it is "finished"!

7 hours ago, Ron Lefebvre said:

new age of complete disinformatio

"New..."???

6 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Are we not entitled to receive something that is advertised as fully working to actually be fully working? Especially when we paid for it?

Anything advertised as Early Access is inherently not "Fully Working"

And nobody forces you to buy any of this stuff. Caveat Emptor is quoted in Latin because, y'know... the concept has been around for "awhile". 😆

Edited March 23, 20251 yr by UrgentSiesta

2 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Not interested, but thanks anyway. I have zero interest in the idea of having to talk to my PC while flying in a sim. 

The goal of Air Traffic Control (ATC) is definitely to simulate real-life communication, which usually involves pilots and controllers verbally exchanging clear and concise information. In real-world aviation, pilots communicate their intentions directly through radio transmissions, using proper phraseology to ensure clarity and avoid confusion.

Using a computer-generated voice to send messages could work as a way to streamline communication, but it wouldn't feel as realistic or authentic as pilots actually speaking their intentions. There's something about the human interaction, the cadence, and the response to dynamic situations that make ATC more immersive when done properly.

So, if you’re aiming for realism, yes, it’s about saying your intentions ( pun intended ) in a natural voice, not just clicking a button for a pre-recorded message.

What’s your take on this? Do you think it adds to the realism or detracts from it?

 

6 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I can't think of any modern and complicated system ever being 100% fully working as advertised, all of the time.

If software worked as advertised 100% of the time, I'd have to get a real job 😎

4 hours ago, knich said:

You realize that MSFS24 is still in early access?

No, it's not. It was sold as a v1.0.0 complete product.

3 hours ago, V1ROTA7E said:

Most of the time, especially at international airports, they just clear you for a departure procedure without giving you an initial altitude. There’s no “climb via” or “climb and maintain” they literally don’t give any initial altitude at all until you contact departure. That’s been an issue since the program released. The feedback I’ve gotten from their team is to “just look at the chart.” That’s all fine, but when there is no initial altitude on the plate, it can be frustrating that there’s such reluctance to acknowledge it’s an issue.

Sids always have altitudes, at least the Sid's  I have seen. 

6 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Sids always have altitudes

Not always. Some have "Altitude set by ATC" or something similar.

8 minutes ago, BrammyH said:

Not always. Some have "Altitude set by ATC" or something similar.

Well it is one or the other. Some sids, BATC says claim to 6,000 feet, then FL 290 after 10 minutes. I have never taken off with BATC and not known how high I was supposed to climb. 

3 hours ago, Ident said:

Can you show me one SID that doesnt have altitude restrictions or targets? Not saying there are none, just have never seen one as up until I see a SID that does, I have always been under the impression thats one of the main purposes of a SID.

Sure, look at the departures out of NZAA for instance. 

1 hour ago, Bobsk8 said:

Sids always have altitudes, at least the Sid's  I have seen. 

They don’t, which is why ATC will issue initial altitudes. 

12 minutes ago, V1ROTA7E said:

They don’t, which is why ATC will issue initial altitudes. 

And that is when BATC gives an initial altitude.