Request for Better ATC

[dkohl 0]

C4TO is, in my opinion, one of the better add-ons created for Fly!2. Yet the program, as good as it is, is still limited. Repeated requests to the developer have fallen on deaf ears - he appears to be resigned not to continue this Fly!2 project.I'm not a developer in any sense. So I have no appreciation for the complexity of my request. But here it is.I'd like to suggest someone (or a group) undertake a new ATC project that would interface with Fly!2's default ATC system. The new program would use Fly's ATC menu's along with auto-tune capabilities, as well as the direct-tuned radios (something C4TO ignores). Some of the features already in C4TO (like "chatter") can be implemented, although I'd suggest trying to better simulate chatter based on which radio is tuned (eg; have ground chatter on the ground, departure/arrivals chatter during these phases, and center chatter while enroute). Wind-sensitive approaches and departures are a must.C4TO is a terrific add-on. But with a definate "NO" from the developer, I'd like to suggest someone take on the challenge of starting from scratch.-DK----David KohlFly! II v230Dell 8200 P4/1.8G, 1024MB RAM, Nvidia GF4 Ti4600 v29.42, WinXP Home Edition.CH Pro Pedals and Yoke USB.

[Guest]

Err. I take it you don't read the other forum? I posted a little preview of the new C4TO that I am now developing. Marc Shrier very kindly provided his Fly!Scripts source code to me and I am now the caretaker. Consequently, there will be a new C4TO and when I've finished the portation to C++, I'll start looking into enhancements.Patience Grasshopper...Cheers, Tony

[dkohl 0]

Woah... I must admit I missed the posting on a new C4TO. I do read the other forum, but I've been out of town a lot and miss entire weeks worth of stuff. I searched this forum for any new developments, but didn't do it on the "general" forum. I apologize.Great news though.Looking forward to it. Any of the features I expressed interest in above?-DK---David KohlFly! II v230Dell 8200 P4/1.8G, 1024MB RAM, Nvidia GF4 Ti4600 v29.42, WinXP Home Edition.CH Pro Pedals and Yoke USB.

[Guest Henri W]

Great news, Tony. C4TO is one of my favoriete Fly! II addons. I am using it all the time. I am sure it can only get better.Good luck with your work. Take care.Henri

[Guest]

Hi David,I can only tell you, at this point, that C4TO will not interface with the default ATC. It simply cannot since there are no API entrypoints that deal with that subsystem. Also, C4TO already supports wind-based runway selection. More often than not, it is a failure to have the weather properly configured that leads to odd runway selections. The biggest failing, really, is the selection of non-ILS runways when doing IFR landings. I will be able to correct that issue as a result of the portation to C++. Finally, the chat issue is something I can look at, but have no plans for just yet, after all I haven't even finished the portation yet. I would like to point out that the original Fly!Scripts C4TO source exceeded 2000 lines. In programming terms, that's a non-trivial effort. The portation is proceeding smoothly but is something that will take me some time--both to do well and to get right. I most likely won't be visiting new features for C4TO until (to be realistic here) sometime in November or maybe early December. As it stands, I've got three other irons in the fire that I would like to go back to and tidy up. Plus, I've had some totally evil person put it in my mind that FSUIPC should be implemented for Fly! II and Lefteris claims I can't do it. Well, the gauntlet has been laid...Anyway, enough rambling...I've got work to do! :-)Cheers, TonyP.S.: Seems like I never get to fly these days... :-lol

[RandallR 444]

Tony,If you need new audio files, let me know. It was a great pleasure to work with Tony on the controller WAVs.

[Guest]

Thanks Randall! I'll keep you in mind as I get farther along in the upgrade process. Cheers, Tony

[Guest]

Hi Tony,This is excellent news! Thanks very much for your efforts! :-)Cheers,Matthew.

[Guest ben_]

That is great news.Considering ATC seems to be a bit 'buggy' with AI, I would think you're NOT using the default ATC is a smart move :-)Thanks TonyBenp.s. I missed that post too! :-roll

[RandallR 444]

Tony,Just a few thought here - be careful about not allowing C4TO to assign non-ILS runways. Most of the runways in the world don't have ILS, yet they are routinely assigned for approaches, as they have VOR, NDB, and LOC aids for instrument conditions. C4TO currently assigns runways based on windage and that is correct - whether that runway has an ILS or not isn't the point. Under IFR conditions, it must have some some type of instrument approach.C4TO does such a good job as it currently exists, that it is very rare that it assigns a runway that doesn't have some kind of instrument approach. It happens to me about 1 in 10 flights. Since the current iteration of C4TO doesn't allow for requesting a different runway, I "Cancel IFR" - then select an appropriate runway with an instrument approach and fly the official approach.To make the above situation more realistic, I would recommend the following additions and/or changes:1. Create a command that allows for requesting a different approach type. If the runway in question is proper for windage but isn't ILS-equipped, we could have a command that responds with: "Requesting VOR approach", or "Requesting NDB approach", etc. ATC would respond with: "VOR approach approved - report IAF". The pilot would report IAF, then ATC might say: "Report inbound".2. Create a command that allows for requesting a different runway. Such a call should bring up a menu of available runways. Once the new runway is chosen, the approach vectors would proceed normally, or item #1 could be used if needed, or if appropriate, a call for visual approach.The exact nomenclature for the additional voice files could be created with the aid of experienced instrument pilots, such as John Ewing.David, I'm not sure what it is that you're looking for in tuning, as C4TO currently auto-tunes and also allows for direct tuning of the radios.

[Guest tonyc]

tony, I am curious as to why you're going to C++ as opposed to FLyscripts. Never mind, you've answered it already. ;-)tony

[Frank Dhont 1]

Tony,First of all, I'm looking forward to the new C4TO.Any chance for a feature in the new C4TO that allows the user to assign a preferred runway (between L or R)?E.g. at Brussels airport (EBBR) between runway 25R and 25L.(C4TO by default always assigned 25L, and in real life the 25R is mostly used)Regards,Frank

[Guest]

Hi Frank,It's certainly possible. You can assign a preferred runway in the Flight Planner, but, at present, C4TO ignores it. After I've finished the portation, I'll see what I can do to use the Flight Planner's specified runway. Cheers, Tony

[Frank Dhont 1]

Hi Tony,Many thanks for the feedback,Frank

[Guest DNelson]

Randall,Good suggestions. I might add that if Tony takes this route, an option could be added to request a circling approach. This is quite common in the real world, when the wind favors a non-IFR runway. (Some approaches are circling-only. These are identified by an alpha letter instead of a runway number (NDB-A, VOR-C, etc). However, most approaches to a specific runway also specify circling minimums on the approach plate.)At my home airport of KOGD, the IFR approaches are to runways 3 and 7. However, the wind seldom favors either of those runways. It is very common to get a clearance something like, "cleared ILS rwy 3 approach, enter right downwind and circle to rwy 16."Dan