Vox-tm

Thanks for the further replies and for the suggestion to increase the number of times VoxATC-X prompts for 'Last aircraft say again?'. At a setting of 5 or more, it's much better and far more usable now. @agood... I think you mis-understood, I was not levelling a criticism at the product, but rather looking for a way to enhance the way it works. All I was hoping for was for the product to respond appropriately to a 'mis-heard' or garbled response, even affer a couple of attempts, rather than just automatically move on. Obviously sometimes the PTT button gets pushed by accident or a readback is mis-spoken and some greater flexibility i felt was needed. With the .XML setting provided in the linked thread i now feel that it's just fine.

Thanks for the reply. So, if I understand this, VoxATC-X/Microsoft Speech Recognition will try to understand what I say and the words I use, and if they do successfully then the prompt will move on the first time. However, if I just mumble something unintelligible, then based on the setting in the .XML file you discussed in your thread I should get that number of "Last aircraft say again?" responses until it automatically moves on, e.g. 5? That being so, I'll try this out.

Not having used VoxATC-X 5.63 for a long time, I'm surprised at how it doesn't seem to respond correctly to the things I say. To test this, I'm running the default tutorial VFR flight from Kansas International - Eppley. If instead of reading what I'm supposed to say I just mumble any old mumbled sound into my microphone, then the first response I receive back is "Last aircraft say again?" - which seems a completely natural and proper response. However, if for a second time I ignore what I'm supposed to say and just mumble some more unintelligle sounds into my microphone, then the dialogue is accepted as correct and the prompt moves onto the next stage. Is this because the Microsoft Voice Recognition hasn't yet learned enough to operate correctly? I would have thought that the opposite would be true, i.e. the more incorrect voice response I make the more "Last aircraft say again?" responses I should get until it learns to distinguish the correct words or not.

Ok, this has now seemed to have rectified itself. Running the 'Joystick Setup' program again, clearing all assignments and re-assigning the button seems to have been the thing that did it.

Hi, I have re-installed VoxATC 5.63 on Windows 7 and everything seems to be working ok in FSX. However, when assigning a joystick button on my X-52 to my 'Press to Talk' function in VoxATC's 'Joystick Setup' application, the button detects just fine and shows correct operation of pressed/released. But when I am in FSX and press the button, I don't hear the static click of the radio when the button is pressed and I cannot talk to ATC. I am able to do so by using an assigned keystroke. Anyone have any suggestions as to what the problem might be? Thanks!

Michael, I'm using UK2000 Scenery's VFR airfields, along with a couple of their Xtreme larger airports. I haven't turned off any of the AI they use via their own utility, however since turning the FSX AI traffic sliders down to 0%, I don't see any AI at those airfields even without using VoxATC.

Ok, tried the same flight plan again today, but this time I made sure I correctly carried out proper zone transits and it seems this might be the key to me seeing more traffic en-route as I saw a few (not lots though) aircraft around me. Either that, or it's because I turned the VoxATC traffic slider up to 100%. But it never rains, it just pours. Despite wanting to see more traffic, I didn't expect to have a near collision with a C172 that buzzed me, and then get completely wiped out by a Caravan that just spawned right on me. Admittedly, I wasn't *exactly* on track with my flight plan, but I still don't think it should have spawned where it did. Should be turning off collisions with other aircraft when using VoxATC?

Thanks for your comments Ray. I posted another thread topic below this one where I commented that I'm not seing any traffic between my start and end airport destinations when I follow a flight plan. I have aircraft doing circuits at both locations, but nothing in between and en-route. My VoxATC traffic slider is at the default setting of 50% and FSX traffic sliders are set to 0% (as per the VoxATC manual recommendations). So unless things have changed in VoxATC v6.x, I'm not enjoying a sky full of aircraft, hence why I'm looking into reinstalling MyTrafficX.

In attempt to try and inject some AI into my flights between start/end airport locations, I'm going to dig out and install my copy of MyTrafficX. Now I know that MyTrafficX can be used with VoxATC but what I am looking for is any advice/tips on how to properly set the two up to work successfully together right after installing MyTrafficX. VoxATC v5.63 is already installed, and the last version I had of MyTrafficX was v5.2, but I can upgrade that to a current version if necessary. Does anyone have any advice or guidance to offer? Thanks

Hi, I am using VoxATC 5.63 and have created a flightplan using Plan-G. I have loaded this into FSX and started my flight. However, I get circuit traffic around my starting airfield and comms, but if I change radio frequency en-route, VoxATC requests that I change back to the original airfield frequency and I see no other traffic en-route to my destination. Is this normal behaviour? Thanks.

No VC = fail.

Yup, I love warbirds too. I love watching them at airshows. I love the smell of oil and fuel etc. I love MS Flight, aircraft sims and PC gaming. But, I don't like cockpitless aircraft and flying in third-person view. I think "It would be cool..." if MS built complete aircraft, rather than pocket-money gimmicks.

Glad you finally got it sorted, and it's warming to read your obvious gratitude to all who helped.

I think this blog post is probably what caused the misunderstanding in the Alaskan DLC's title of 'Journey to Alaska': https://news.microsoftflight.com/blogs/news/archive/2012/03/05/dlc-sneak-peek-journey-to-alaska.aspx

@OMGBBQ32 I think you may be misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. I'm not passing comment on how much work, or how much the team working on Flight have been able to achieve in the time they have had available, or whether they should even be producing anything like the quality of textures that are available from third parties for FSX. What I'm saying is that I believe that Flight engine would support higher resolution and more detailed textures, and therefore the level of visual enhancement can be increased. HOWEVER, the trade off in cost would be lower fps for the average user, alongwith stutters and blurries for lower spec machines. What the Flight team have created is a level of detail and visuals that will work very happily across the majority. But as the general specification of the average PC increases, so the visuals with Flight could follow suit. What the Flight team have managed to avoid thus far is the same disappointment in the community that was felt over FSX during the past couple of years. Without being able to play with the files due to meta file locking, we cannot prove the point by adding third party scenery, but I bet you it can handle it.

If anything, anyone hacking the game would be doing us a favour... they might unlock the ability for us to mod the game files and create third party content :D

Getting stuck on invisible walls seems to be the bane of anyone who walks around in first person view. Collision detection with objects is pretty poor, and normally wouldn't be too much of a problem if first person view exploration wasn't possible. But as it is available, jiggling around to try and free yourself from an invisible obstruction can get really tiresome.

Why? I've just explained that Flight is based on the FSX engine, and that screenshot is from FSX. The default texture resolution in Flight has been upped to 4096 as standard, and the high resolution Everest textures shown above in FSX use that resolution. So, 'technically' it's possible in MS Flight right now.

To be fair, despite some fairly minor improvements in Prepar3D, it's essentially still FSX. With a decent modern gaming rig, you can get perfectly acceptable performance from FSX... and will no doubt find it in the 'bargain bin' of most gaming stores for alot less that $49. And that's without a watermark.

Thinking about this a little more... in principle, there is no actual upper limit currently set on the maximum quality achieveable in Flight. The landmass meshes and textures are surely of a quality to permit 'across the board' performance on a variety of PC's out there. But as the engine is fundamentally the same as FSX, in theory higher resolution textures and meshes are possible that would enhance the realism of the game further. However, this would only be achievable on the higher spec machines and therefore would narrow the wide user base that MS is obviously aiming for. If you've ever seen any of the Everest photoreal textures available for Flight Simulator X, then you'll see what's theoretically possible...

Hi Stan, Thanks for the comments, it was a beautiful flight and should be easy to recreate with Flight's limited set of conditions: Eastern side of Maui (over/around the large valley/rift area), Dusk on April 4th, using 'Low and Threatening' weather conditions. Have fun up there!

Looking at the specs you list for your rig, it's much better than mine so you should have no problem setting visuals at the higher end of the scale. I think the visuals can vary, especially at different times of day with different lighting and different weather conditions. Here's a shot of mine, at dusk, using one of the thunderstorm weather settings. It's very 'hyperreal' rather than photoreal, but a great atmospheric environment to fly in.

As the early supporters paid more for their DLC than they would now on Steam, I think MS should reward them with FREE VC's for the Mustang/Zero :)

Am I better off installing the Steam version? How do you go about doing this when the original version is installed? Do you lose any settings?

The last 4 or 5 Aerocaches I've found just aren't being saved and I've now done them three times over. Anyone else had this issue?