nrunning24

Summary of the pilot discourse on the internet. Pilot rejects bad/dangerous ATC instruction: "Yes PIC does what is required for the safety of the airplane, we are in control of the aircraft not anyone else" Pilot cowboys the worst approach I've ever seen: "Well lets not rush to judgement, they might have been tired, maybe the company didn't want them to be late. There are deeper reasons for this"

This is where I'm at too. I've been waiting for 6 years at this point for a high quality LFPG. 2 years is more than enough time to build something high quality. The fact that there "response" was posting just WIP shots of the ground markings and ATC tower tells me there are still a long ways off as well.

But why is that not ok? We have multiple existing ATC programs on the market that still haven't got what this program claims to be able to do now and they have been in development for years. How is that disrespectful? Its not like we are creating threads to bash this person, this person is actively creating multiple threads to build up the excitement for a project that honestly seems to promise more than can be reasonably be expected all the while writing in AI platitudes. That very much doesnt feel legit. Even take out the AI language of the posts, a brand new dev that just released their first program 3 months ago to basically no reception (haven't heard anything positive or negative) now 3 months later has a full beta of an ATC program that via his own promotion is doing more advanced things than anything on the market from devs that have been working in the community for years, with basically no previews or anything. That alone would make me say "this does not seem legit"

Huh? This is absolutely marketing. Not that I'm mad about it, but posting a hype thread about your product, including celebrity ATC involvement, previously posting teaser videos..... This is definitely marketing. In fact we didn't really get much behind the scenes, the OP read more like a feature list.

Since there is NO evidence either way I would say those excited and those expressing honest doubts biased off the persons actual written posts are on the same footing, no? What makes your opinion more valid than others? If someone is marketing a product they plan to sell directly on this forum I don't see any reason that they should be protected from people expressing honest skepticism. That's what the forum is for no?

I've stayed out of this mostly because personally the marketing and writing style of this screams AI slop. And I hope its not, I really do, but there are lots of red flags (as someone who uses Claude all the time for their own work). - Word choice is very suspect and screams AI, and not just hey rewrite this, but like asking AI to create the whole framing... things like "It is the baseline" "That distinction matters" I see these phrases all the time when AI is trying to make an argument or support a point vs something that's just checking proper English usage. -A whole separate program SimPassengers was released only 3 months ago by the same developer... Even the best devs in any tech space are not already on an actual BETA of a brand new complex program within 3 months of release of their last (and very first as a company) brand new program. These are the timelines that line up much more with lower quality heavy AI assisted programing. - Why would you as a developer want only 10 Beta testers? That seems like a crazy low number and means your software won't be properly tested in all the conditions, flight environments or computer software/hardware set ups. Even something like 30-40 testers would give you 3 or 4x more data and feedback. To me it screams marketing, not sound development. -We have multiple projects who have been at this point released and working in continual development for years on ATC that seem to still have not implemented some of the things that are marketed here. I hope I'm wrong on all this, I would love to have the best ATC with the best AI handling possible. But calling out forum posters who plainly feel uneasy about the above as "insulting behavior" is a little much. Where did all the distain for PMDG's word salad, marketing only posts go? At least they have a track record of quality releases going back years. This feels much more heavy on the word salad and marketing and less heavy on any sort of proof or substance than anything PMDG has done.

So your not keeping current Zulu time for your flights via time acceleration (which no judgement, but that's your choice). And your complaining that the clock is no longer accurate vs the FMC? I guess I'm confused, is correct time important or not? While I agree that it should work correctly, I find it weird that real time sync isn't important in some ways but also very important in others.

Yes its now listed in 2024 addons. Version 1.3.2. No trick required.

Not sure how its disrespectful to point out that your blanket statement is just false, and that because you were in contact with real ATC controllers 10 years ago during RC4 development doesn't make you any kind of authority on anything ATC related. Yes there is a world outside US.... But there also is USA air travel as well. BATC actually handles the USA vs world differences in many respects. If you actually used MSFS you would know that when airports have SIDs like in the UK, the BATC controller will clear you via the SID, and only does the vectors at airports that require it..... Its much more advanced than anything RC4 ever did.

Correct he didn't, but my issue is that you made a blanket statement about what real world ATC does on departure that just isn't true..... You said "No real-world AT Control would issue those instructions. You fly the SID unless otherwise instructed." backpedal all you want. Major US airports do not have SIDs and all departures are vectored to their first waypoint. I get you were a beta tester on RC4 all those years ago, you constantly tell us that as well. I just don't understand how someone who was working on a software program with some real ATC people 10 years ago, and doesn't even use MSFS, is on these forums commenting like some expert when they make obviously wrong statements.

Ray not sure why you constantly comment in the MSFS forums, as you have told us over and over you are still only in P3D and happy. But also this comment is so wrong... Some large US airports do not have published SIDs and all aircraft are basically given vectors to their first waypoint. KORD being the first main example that jumps in my head. Would they issue multiple incremental vector changes like in the example? No but they definitely issue an initial vector with TO clearance, and then sometimes 1 subsequent one after departure before giving a DTO.

Not sure you are the authority on what is a "waste of money" that's a very personal decision, and depends on lots of factors. For you maybe it is, but for many it is very much not. You must not be flying into airports that you have been to in real life, because for me at least the immersion breaking of seeing a default airport somewhere I've been before makes me not even want to sim. Let alone the ground textures, markings, default terminal textures etc. I find to be not even worth flying there.

The idea that you need to keep an email for years that has an expired download link for the possible future scenario of a free upgrade to a simulator that didn't even exist when you bought the original product because "why not" just does not fly.... Literally EVERY single other dev has figured out how to make this as painless as possible. Then what happens when Reno, Seoul, Cleveland etc. get released.... Same thing? Its embarrassing.

Sure it takes 30 seconds if you have the original 2020 download link email.... The whole idea that you need to find a random email from 4 years ago and respond to that then you get the upgrade for free is absolutely way more work than should be required..... They could send out an email to everyone who bought 2020 version informing them and making it easy to upgrade but they dont. Which to me says they want to make it difficult so some people just say whatever I'll just buy it again... Its the only reason to make an upgrade this user unfriendly.

I will say, as someone who only flies airlines once the PMDG 737 got released I went from only 2020 to only 2024.... Mostly because I could see the writing on the wall for future 2020 updates and releases.... I will say as someone who got a pretty good system back in 2020 which is now outdated I was very surprised at the 2024 performance. Ultra settings on 2020 I needed Lossless Scaling to have anything close to a smooth experience... On 2024 I'm one down from Ultra (forget what its called, maybe high) and no need for lossless scaling, its very smooth. I could use more VRAM. I have 11GB, but outside of that its a good experience (PMDG, Fenix, ini A350, w/ Beyond ATC with AIG models for Traffic)