33 minutes ago, rjquick said:

With AI being all the rage, you would think ATC would be great and interesting sandbox to show the capabilities of modern AI for the likes of MS/Asobo. Besides coming up with the correct instructions and verbiage, AI can deliver voice in all kinds of variances and dialects.

To be fair and FWIW, prior to 2024's release they did say that the ATC revamp will be coming post release in a subsequent update, likely driven and developed by Working Title. Obviously given the launch state and issues, they've been heads down on fixing the bugs. I am assuming that after SU2 or SU3 they'll get back to their original plan of post release enhancements and other work.

https://msfsaddons.com/2024/09/19/microsoft-flight-simulator-2024-fully-detailed-a-comprehensive-look-at-the-next-gen-sim/

Reworked ATC coming with a later update

With regards to the Air Traffic Control system in MSFS 2024, things are not as promising as in most other areas of the sim. 

The team has already improved a little bit on 2020, basically fixing issues, bugs, and speech. Sebastian Wloch told me that, right now, ATC is sitting more or less on flight planning, because they need to know all the approaches, all the routes where the aircraft is going. As we know, they’re reworking the whole flight planning system. Once flight planning is solid, then they can build a new ATC on top of flight planning.

Right now, you will not see a completely new ATC system yet. That’s an update to come after the initial release.
 

Edited May 3, 20251 yr by lwt1971

24 minutes ago, rjquick said:

With AI being all the rage, you would think ATC would be great and interesting sandbox to show the capabilities of modern AI for the likes of MS/Asobo. 

MS literally have CoPilot app in Windows 11 and there is literally a CoPilot button on the keyboard, but their MS Flight Simulator has no such AI Copilot feature.  No such AI ATC feature.  And we have to pay extra fees to small 3rd party Devs for said feature.

Just now, lwt1971 said:

To be fair and FWIW, prior to 2024's release they did say that the ATC revamp will be coming post release in a subsequent update
 

Don't hold your breath on anything these Devs say. They said a lot of things. Such as airports and aircraft will be backwards compatible. And with the new CPU multi threading code the Performance and FPS of FS2024 will be outstanding! 

50 minutes ago, Greazer said:

Don't hold your breath on anything these Devs say. They said a lot of things. Such as airports and aircraft will be backwards compatible. And with the new CPU multi threading code the Performance and FPS of FS2024 will be outstanding! 

Thanks for the tip, but I'll put 10000x more stock in what Seb and the Asobo devs say compared to the bloviating that goes on around here by the cosplaying wannabe MSFS project managers and devs.

And I'll judge their ATC revamp when it comes. They didn't say the ATC improvements were coming in the initial release of 2024, and a lot of what they did say about improvements coming to 2024 *DID* come.

And oh, the multi-threading *is* definitely better in 2024 as evidenced by the better and more efficient use of CPU cores. And given the increased workload and computation going on in 2024 (i.e. for the more detailed CFD simulation and calculations, 10x more surfaces on aircraft geometry, more ground details, etc), this is much welcome. Given that other release-state bugs are impacting FPS at times doesn't mean they did not deliver on the better multi-threading.

Some of what they did say about multi-threading and performance:
https://msfsaddons.com/2024/06/24/interview-with-jorg-neumann-and-sebastian-wloch-on-microsoft-flight-simulator-2024-and-beyond/
Vasco: Clearly, there’s a lot coming. The visual improvements are impressive, there’s ray tracing now. So, how’s the performance compared to MSFS 2020?
Seb: There’s improved detail and complexity, but also more optimization. For example, the surface system on the plane: in MSFS 2020, there were 500 to 1,000 surfaces on a plane. In the new aircraft, it’s 10 times more, but it’s multi-threaded and optimized, so the cost is about the same. Overall, performance should be similar.
https://www.helisimmer.com/interview/msfs-2024-helicopters-future-msfs-2020
You know, CFD is very important for helicopters. And so with the new system, we're very much multi-threaded, taking work of the main thread about all the simulation aerodynamics works.
 

Edited May 3, 20251 yr by lwt1971

4 hours ago, Greazer said:

MS literally have CoPilot app in Windows 11 and there is literally a CoPilot button on the keyboard, but their MS Flight Simulator has no such AI Copilot feature.  No such AI ATC feature.  And we have to pay extra fees to small 3rd party Devs for said feature.

Gonna file this one under, "Tell me you don't really understand AI without telling me you don't understand AI."

15 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

I guess if you have nothing really to contribute to this thread

I'm quite satisfied about my contributions so far 😁

Also quite satisfied about the current state of MSFS 2024 and it will only get better👍

36 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

I'm quite satisfied about my contributions so far 😁

Also quite satisfied about the current state of MSFS 2024 and it will only get better👍

yep just waiting for pmdg to port over the rest of  the fleet to 2024

13 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

Thanks for the tip, but I'll put 10000x more stock in what Seb and the Asobo devs say compared to the bloviating that goes on around here by the cosplaying wannabe MSFS project managers and devs.

And I'll judge their ATC revamp when it comes. They didn't say the ATC improvements were coming in the initial release of 2024, and a lot of what they did say about improvements coming to 2024 *DID* come.

And oh, the multi-threading *is* definitely better in 2024 as evidenced by the better and more efficient use of CPU cores. And given the increased workload and computation going on in 2024 (i.e. for the more detailed CFD simulation and calculations, 10x more surfaces on aircraft geometry, more ground details, etc), this is much welcome. Given that other release-state bugs are impacting FPS at times doesn't mean they did not deliver on the better multi-threading.

Some of what they did say about multi-threading and performance:
https://msfsaddons.com/2024/06/24/interview-with-jorg-neumann-and-sebastian-wloch-on-microsoft-flight-simulator-2024-and-beyond/
Vasco: Clearly, there’s a lot coming. The visual improvements are impressive, there’s ray tracing now. So, how’s the performance compared to MSFS 2020?
Seb: There’s improved detail and complexity, but also more optimization. For example, the surface system on the plane: in MSFS 2020, there were 500 to 1,000 surfaces on a plane. In the new aircraft, it’s 10 times more, but it’s multi-threaded and optimized, so the cost is about the same. Overall, performance should be similar.
https://www.helisimmer.com/interview/msfs-2024-helicopters-future-msfs-2020
You know, CFD is very important for helicopters. And so with the new system, we're very much multi-threaded, taking work of the main thread about all the simulation aerodynamics works.

Bless and thank you Len for always trying your best to provide balanced and historical information to add context to the various accusations and conclusions drawn by the usual suspects and the entourage of XPlaners who always show up to any and all negative threads on MSFS to support those trashing MS/A.  And one can't help but notice none of them will acknowledge any of your efforts by clicking a Like link because their agenda is only to bash and trash.

2024 ATC is improving bit by bit and waiting for a revamp is no problem since it has already been decades.

dd

Here is an analysis of an image of the KSLC ILS 16R approach chart made by one of the popular AI tools:

Quote

This is an Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach chart for Runway 16R at Salt Lake City International Airport (KSLC) in Utah, specifically the ILS or Localizer (LOC) approach. Let’s break down the procedure, frequencies, speeds, elevations, and restrictions.

### **Procedure Overview**
This chart details the ILS approach to Runway 16R, which provides precision guidance for landing in low-visibility conditions. The approach can also be flown as a LOC-only approach if the glideslope (GS) is unavailable. The procedure involves flying a specific path using navigation aids, descending at defined points, and adhering to minimum altitudes until the runway is in sight or a missed approach is executed.

---

### **Pertinent Frequencies**
- **ILS Frequency**: The ILS for Runway 16R is on 109.5 MHz (as indicated by "I-UAT" on the chart).
- **VOR Frequency**: The Ogden VOR (OGD) is used for navigation, on 115.7 MHz.
- **Tower Frequency**: Salt Lake Tower is on 118.3 MHz or 257.8 MHz (UHF).
- **Ground Frequency**: Salt Lake Ground is on 121.9 MHz or 348.6 MHz (UHF).
- **ATIS (Automatic Terminal Information Service)**: 125.625 MHz for weather and airport information.
- **Approach Control**: Salt Lake Approach is on 120.9 MHz or 284.7 MHz (UHF).

---

### **Speeds**
- **Approach Speed**: The chart references a maximum speed of 165 knots for the missed approach climb, as noted in the profile view ("165 KTS MAX").
- **Category Speeds**: The minimums section lists approach speeds by aircraft category (A to D):
  - Category A: <91 knots
  - Category B: 91–120 knots
  - Category 😄 121–140 knots
  - Category 😧 141–165 knots
  These speeds determine the applicable minimums (visibility and decision altitude/height).

---

### **Elevations**
- **Airport Elevation**: Salt Lake City International Airport is at 4,227 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).
- **Threshold Elevation**: The runway threshold for 16R is at 4,221 feet.
- **Glideslope Intercept Altitude**: The glideslope is intercepted at 5,900 feet (at the final approach fix, BRIVE).
- **Minimum Altitudes**:
  - At BRIVE (Final Approach Fix): 5,900 feet.
  - At STACO (intermediate fix): 7,500 feet.
  - At BINKR (initial fix): 9,000 feet.
- **Decision Altitude (DA)** for ILS:
  - Category A-D: 4,427 feet (200 feet above the runway threshold, or Touchdown Zone Elevation + 200 feet).
- **Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA)** for LOC-only:
  - Category A-D: 4,680 feet (approximately 460 feet above the runway threshold).

---

### **Procedure Steps**
1. **Initial Approach**:
   - Start at the BINKR intersection at 9,000 feet.
   - Fly the 164° course toward STACO, descending to 7,500 feet.
   - Use the Ogden VOR (OGD 115.7 MHz) for navigation if needed.

2. **Intermediate Approach**:
   - From STACO, continue on the 164° course toward BRIVE, descending to 5,900 feet.
   - BRIVE is the Final Approach Fix (FAF) where the glideslope is intercepted for the ILS approach.

3. **Final Approach**:
   - Follow the glideslope down at a 3° angle toward the runway.
   - The Decision Altitude (DA) for the ILS approach is 4,427 feet (200 feet above the runway threshold). At this point, the pilot must have the runway in sight to continue the descent, or execute a missed approach.
   - For LOC-only, descend to the MDA of 4,680 feet and continue until the runway is in sight or the missed approach point (MAP) is reached (0.9 DME from I-UAT).

4. **Missed Approach**:
   - If the runway is not in sight at the DA/MDA or MAP, execute the missed approach:
     - Climb straight ahead to 5,000 feet.
     - Then turn right to a heading of 260° and climb to 9,000 feet via the Ogden VOR (OGD) 236° radial to WEBER intersection, then hold.

---

### **Restrictions**
- **Terrain and Obstacles**: The chart shows significant terrain to the north and east, with elevations up to 9,931 feet near the airport. Pilots must maintain minimum altitudes to avoid obstacles.
- **Minimums**:
  - ILS: DA of 4,427 feet with 1/2 statute mile visibility (Category A-D).
  - LOC: MDA of 4,680 feet with 3/4 statute mile visibility (Category A-D).
- **Glideslope Unusable**: If the glideslope is unusable below 4,680 feet, revert to LOC minimums.
- **Missed Approach Speed Limit**: Maximum 165 knots during the missed approach climb.
- **Night Operations**: Straight-in landing on Runway 16R at night requires a climb to 6,000 feet on the runway heading before turning, due to terrain.
- **Visibility Requirements**: Visibility minimums increase if certain approach lights (e.g., ALS) are inoperative, as noted in the "Inoperative Table" on the chart.

---

### **Additional Notes**
- **Lighting Systems**: Runway 16R has High-Intensity Runway Lights (HIRL), Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL), and a Medium-Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR).
- **DME**: Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) is available with the ILS (I-UAT) to help determine distances along the approach path.
- **Weather Minimums**: Pilots must check ATIS for current weather to ensure conditions meet the approach minimums.
- **Holding Pattern**: If holding at WEBER, the pattern is on the OGD 236° radial with a 056° inbound course, right turns, and a 1-minute leg.

This approach requires careful attention to altitude, terrain, and weather due to the high elevation of the airport and surrounding mountains. Let me know if you'd like a deeper dive into any specific part!

 

Default FS2020 ATC got worse over time. FS2024 was just as bad. It was INOP the last time I tested the sim.

7 hours ago, Noel said:

Bless and thank you Len for always trying your best to provide balanced and historical information to add context to the various accusations and conclusions drawn by the usual suspects and the entourage of XPlaners who always show up to any and all negative threads on MSFS to support those trashing MS/A.  And one can't help but notice none of them will acknowledge any of your efforts by clicking a Like link because their agenda is only to bash and trash.

You are as-suming too much. Do not always do that in a thread where people here actually use a MS/Asobo product and are not happy, gigglly or whip pe do about. They have legit issues whether you want to believe it or not. Glad you enjoy MS2024 but many people do not, not hard to understand.

42 minutes ago, CFIJose said:

Default FS2020 ATC got worse over time. FS2024 was just as bad. It was INOP the last time I tested the sim.

Just pathetic.

6 minutes ago, JBDB-MD80 said:

not hard to understand.

It’s actually very hard for him to understand. It’s his way or the highway. A difference of opinion and all of a sudden you have an agenda against Asobo (who appear to do no wrong), or you’re a member of the ‘xplaner entourage’, here to ‘bash and trash’ a product that you paid for. 

Edited May 3, 20251 yr by Ianrivaldosmith

2 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

It’s actually very hard for him to understand.

Not  only him but quite a few others here. I have nothing more to say here.

Edited May 3, 20251 yr by JBDB-MD80