I usually play with 100% ATC (When not using RC) and I find very annoying the fact that the default FS2002 ATC does a very poor job on maintaining AC separation... I almost had a midair collision when a 747 passed by!!! it was chasing me! ATC did not notice we were close to each other! I was NUMER #1 to land! how will RC v3.0 manage this little annoyances?

we're looking at that now. two problems, no sdk is one. second, if i can't control the other plane, but just yours, i've really tied the controllers hands. in the real world the controller can issue instructions to both planes, and seperate them.if i can only issue you an instruction, then i may turn you away from traffic #1, into the path of traffic #2, and then i'll turn you away from traffic #2, and into #3. you may never end up at your arrival airport.this is one of those wait and see issues. too much more waiting, and we'll have to go with what we have, and add this feature in a future release.right now, i can't say what we're going to do.

>i may turn you away from traffic #1, into the path of traffic #2, >and then i'll turn you away from traffic #2, and into #3JD, I understand the challenge you are facing... but The MAIN feature an ATC for FS2002 add-on needs is a way to properly sequence the traffic in Flight Simulator. I Know RC v3.0 will be a more realistic ATC in terms of interaction with the controller but, imagine KORD or KATL using custom AI Traffic or for example the upcoming Project AI Package. Using 100% ATC in this conditions will be simply frustrating.Can you pause the AI Traffic? I know it sounds crazy and unrealistic but if you can't control the AI traffic you should then look into ways on pausing it to properly sequence the flow. Maybe making the player always #1 to land? because I doubt without the SDK you'll find a way to sequence a #2 or #3 landing without the controller issuing a go around.... The AI Traffic is really, really strange... they land like rockets at more than 210Kts have your noticed that??? maybe the traffic 'warps' to comply with a certain timer within the simulator? just some ideas.

I found two interesting files in the modules folderai_playr.dllsim1.dllUse a Hex Editor and take a look at them...ai_playr.dll looks like it has some functions related to 'separation' 'ai pause' and approach speeds. If the function exists within FS maybe you can invoke it using FSUIPC?

You are lucky that you did not have a mid-air collison as I did have one. After a two hour flight on the approach with nothing infront of me I had a cessna coming from nowhere in infront of me, I had little time and ended up with a midair collision which I did not like. Another case is when I am waiting to cross a Runway and an airplane that just landed come in taxing through the taxi way where I am waiting and obviously had an Airplane crash.I wonder how many people come across these issues and whether there is a way to avoid them.As regards RC, lately I am not using it that much but instead I am waiting for ver 3, I like the AI traffic and I am too lazy to create the advantures, altough I spend alot of time preparing for the flight, flightplan, fuel calculation etc. In any case I think that after experiencing RC the ATC in FS2K2 does not offer much challange apart from trying to avoid the Mid Air collisions.

Ynot, and that's exactly the point i want to make clear... RC 3.0 and the Default FS2002 ATC will be no different if there's no way to properly sequence the traffic at busy airports... Remember that RC v3.0 is just a Front End aplication using the DEFAULT FS2002 ATC as backend. The ai_player.dll and sim1.dll files in the modules folder may hold the key to change the behavior of the ATC engine.JD, I'm in NO WAY trying to be negative about RC v3.0, it's just that you are the ONLY HOPE for people wanting FS2002 to be trully 'as real as it gets'The ATC in Flight Simulator can be easily replaced with an add-on because if you don't trigger a comunication simply there will be no ATC (but still the AI will fly according to ATC rules) What i'm asking is that JD and team go a step beyond and play with the internals of FS2002... I'm not asking much :)

>Ynot, and that's exactly the point i want to make clear... >RC 3.0 and the Default FS2002 ATC will be no different if >there's no way to properly sequence the traffic at busy >airports... Remember that RC v3.0 is just a Front End >aplication using the DEFAULT FS2002 ATC as backend. The >ai_player.dll and sim1.dll files in the modules folder may >hold the key to change the behavior of the ATC engine. correction, rc is not a front end to fs2002 atc. it totally replaces fs2002's atc.>>JD, I'm in NO WAY trying to be negative about RC v3.0, it's >just that you are the ONLY HOPE for people wanting FS2002 to >be trully 'as real as it gets' >>The ATC in Flight Simulator can be easily replaced with an >add-on because if you don't trigger a comunication simply >there will be no ATC (but still the AI will fly according to >ATC rules) What i'm asking is that JD and team go a step >beyond and play with the internals of FS2002... I'm not >asking much :)without an sdk, you are asking too much. and by the time the sdk with the pertinent information is released, we won't be adding new features to version 3. as a matter of fact, i can't imagine a new feature that we would add now. too late in the development cycle. we've been doing this since last summer. we're ready to push this out the door, and i think a number of people would vote to release, not further delay it.

Hi Folks,I haven't spent a huge amount of time flying with AI but what has been the most frustrating for me is when you are #2 behind an AI plane on final and close enough to where you have visual contact with the traffic and the AI plane lands but you are told to go around because the AI is not exiting the runway fast enough. It seems to happen to me every time. Even if RC ignored the AI once it landed and I could steer around it after touchdown it would be a vast improvement. I would even be willing to disable crashing with aircraft. I've lived with that while using FSTraffic anyway.I certainly don't expect RC3 to address all the AI problems and issues. Maybe RC4? I'm sure RC3 is going to knock my socks off without adding anything more than has been already described. I can hardly wait.Keep up the good work JD!Dave Logan (kbfi)

Dave,"...where you have visual contact with the traffic and the AI plane lands but you are told to go around because the AI is not exiting the runway fast enough."There has only just been a utility released which edits the taxi speed of the AI aircraft so that the aircraft that have landed can taxi to the nearest exit faster than default.Stamatis

jd,"without an sdk, you are asking too much."Has such an SDK been announced?Has MS declared that they will be releasing such an SDK?Stamatis

Stamatis,So far they have not announced in advance which sdk's they are releasing. They've released quite a few so far, though, so we have reason to hope that they'll release an ai traffic sdk.Sidney Schwartz [KPDX]

Thanks Sid, this was my understanding too. But for a minute I just hoped that there was an announcement...Also, some of the SDK's have proved to be of very little help. e.g. the aircraft container SDK did not tell is anything we did not already know, wile not revealing anything that we did not know.Stamatis

>>There has only just been a utility released which edits the taxi speed of the AI aircraft so that the aircraft that have landed can taxi to the nearest exit faster than default.And very good it is to! As usual it is available by clicking "The Hermit" link below & scrolling down to "Taxi-Speed":-wave

Any thought, JD, to using parallel runways to the one that MS AI use? Of course not every airport has a suitable parallel runway but at the busiest airports, where sequencing will be the toughest, they're pretty common.BTW you have my sympathy for trying to release 3.0 without an SDK to help, but I think it's the right choice given the circumstances.

>e.g. the aircraft container SDK did not tell is anything we >did not already know, wile not revealing anything that we >did not know. Yes...less than useless. Sidney Schwartz [KPDX]