Ah got it then, that is incorrect indeed!
Yes correct, Bremen, Langen en München radar all perform area control but also approach / departure control tasks for a large group of aerodromes. Only the bigger aerodromes have their own departure / approach control. But we are derailing this topic, I think we need to continue the discussion elsewhere.
I noticed those line in English pack. Which “Malmo” of those two I should change to “Sweden” to get the correct ATC name? I hope I can also safely change some dated airport names there.
P.S. Sorry for the off topic again.
"ATCCOM.AGENT_NAME MALMO CONTROL.0.text": "Malmo", "ATCCOM.AGENT_NAME MALMO CONTROL.0.tts": "Malmo", "ATCCOM.AGENT_NAME MALMO FIR.0.text": "Malmo", "ATCCOM.AGENT_NAME MALMO FIR.0.tts": "Malmo", "ATCCOM.AGENT_NAME MALMO UIR.0.text": "Malmo", "ATCCOM.AGENT_NAME MALMO UIR.0.tts": "Malmo", "ATCCOM.AGENT_NAME MALMO.0.text": "Malmo", "ATCCOM.AGENT_NAME MALMO.0.tts": "Malmo",
At least FIR and UIR, I think CONTROL might be the actual Malmo approach controller, not sure. the last two entries are the airport itself I think so don’t change those. Let me know if it works and I will add it to the next version!
Edit: I would change UIR to “Eurocontrol”. Maybe I should do that for all UIRs in Europe. Risk is that it then becomes Eurocontrol radar or something stupid though .
Are you a real life pilot? If I start throwing the terms Vr, Va, Vne, Vno at you, does that mean anything to you? How about instrument flying, do you know what a holding pattern is, or how to enter one properly? Have you ever flown an ILS in real life? What about a VOR/DME approach?
Do you understand what the mixture lever does, and why it’s there? How about a constant speed prop, do you know that term, what it does, or how it works?
If the above all sounded like I was speaking some foreign language, then maybe you should call a time out before you judge the products ability to simulate flight. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not necessary to understand a single word I said to own and enjoy the product, or even to learn about real life flying. But is is (at least in my opinion) necessary that you have at least some foundation in what real world flying is before you can say that it isn’t anything more than a scenery simulator.
It can be used that way, certainly. With all the cheats and assists available, you can probably “fly” a 747 from point A to point B without even owning (or touching) anything aside from a keyboard and mouse. But doing it that way shares nothing in common with piloting an aircraft save some visuals.
But it also can be, and is frequently used as an actual hardcore IFR (or VFR) flight simulator by people like me who have done it in the real world. The software can also be used to help someone learn some aspects of real world flying, perhaps in conjunction with actual flight training, reading books, manuals, and other written materials (like say, FAA test prep materials), or even watching educational materials on YouTube.
However, if you know nothing at all about real world flying, I don’t think you are in a position to judge whether or not the product adequately simulates that. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe you’re a real world airline pilot, and you’ve used MSFS and found it so horrific, that you judge it to be worthless for anything but a scenery sim. If that is the case, then you are absolutely qualified to make that statement, but I did not get that sense from reading what you wrote.
You are entitled to your opinion, and you are entitled to use a product that you purchased with your hard-earned money in any manner that you choose. But if you have no knowledge of being a pilot, you lack any references that would make you a good judge as to it’s usefulness to simulate that.
It would be like me buying a surgery simulator application, and stating that it did not do a good job of simulating surgery, despite the fact that I don’t know the first thing about performing surgery.
You spoke of “severe turbulence” that you may have experienced as a passenger. I very much doubt you’ve ever actually experienced as it is defined by the FAA, which is as follows:
“Severe turbulence is characterised by large, abrupt changes in attitude and altitude with large variations in airspeed. There may be brief periods where effective control of the aircraft is impossible. Loose objects may move around the cabin and damage to aircraft structures may occur.”
It’s quite likely that what you think of as “severe” the guys up front know is really nothing even close to it, is nothing more than uncomfortable, and might make it hard to walk. Same with “ear popping”. Granted, that is something a sim on your computer cannot simulate, but it’s also something that real world pilots get so accustomed to that they don’t even notice it’s happening.
I’m not trying to be a jerk, or come off as some holier than thou type, I simply think it’s likely that you are unqualified to state that the software doesn’t simulate flight accurately. Not only did you do that, you did it in such a manner as to make it sound like your unqualified opinion was somehow an indisputable fact.
Yes, I agree with you
I don’t think that the more casual and fun players will make the Sim less realistic. Simply speaking they will make it more popular, and being more popular means more profit. And profit means resources.
Also, EvidencePlz was talking about that a game studio developer cannot create a relistic looking Sim. I can’t agree with this, I think Jörg and his team have a good vision. And making Sim more popular will also bring them more money. Which they can invest into hiring some professionals to make the Sim to be more relisitc.
TL;DR. I don’t think you need to have a very nerdy CEO’s to have a realistic Sim (no offence Jörg and the team - I know you are very smart ), but it is a right ammount of money and willingness to invest them that makes the difference.
for sure…i’ve made peace with the fact that asobo also needs to cater for the wider gaming community - in fact i really don’t mind this at all - provided the hard core/ more serious simmer’s needs are not shut out.
sure it would be nice to have a product tailor made for special one-of-a-kind snowflakes like you and me, but it ain’t gonna happen
I agree with the sentiment, but would revise it to “be” more realistic. I think the looks are fine for most things, niggles with clouds, and LOD etc. aside.
To put my personal slant on it, I always look forward to an SU far more than a WU, with this impending one being an exception of course.
I edited my post. Yes, that’s what I mean
So, I have changed everything to “Sweden” there, and now it says “Sweden radar” instead of “Malmo radar”. The Malmo airport itself is called Sturup, so there’s no conflict there. I also changed Bodo and Tampere controls to Finland and Norway to make it fit with this official ATC map
I also tried to tweak it a bit more, and change some dated airport names like Okecie to Chopin, Ruzyne to Vaclav Havel and so on. It also changed the airport names on the world map.
The only thing that remained unchanged the name writen in capital letters that appears in the ATC menu, like f.ex. “MALMO CONTROL:N12860, Sweden Radar, radar contact”. But they don’t pronounce it anyway.
P.S. It seems that “Eurocontrol” makes no difference there, at least I could not find any.
Oh yes that is correct, Malmo is called Sturup, so those last two lines are likely what is shown in the ATC menu.
Tampere is more correct, there is no “finland radar” that I’m aware of, its Helsinki and Tampere radar for the most part.
Changing the UIR will likely only affect flying above FL300 or so (as in real life). But I’m afraid it will end up like “Eurocontrol radar”.
One thought that crosses my mind now is to change “Radar” to “Control”, unfortunately “Langen radar” for example becomes “Langen control”. But then we can change all European UIRs to “Euro” which then becomes “Euro control”…
Its all about compromises…
What if I change “Sweden” to “Sweden Control”, of course I know that “Sweden Control radar. Radar contact.” would sound strange as well.
P.S. I will try with Eurcontrol once more, but this time will try to climb higher
Yes that is an option, remove the phrase “radar” or “control” completely and then modify each ATSU manually. But that is a buttload of work.
- If you don’t remove the phrase “radar” it will become “Sweden control radar”
- For ATSUs which you don’t update it would just become “Sweden” for example, which is not unrealistic, most people do just say “Sweden” for example when checking-in. So for parts of the world you don’t update its still useable.
I think we can move this conversation to PM now to save the forum space
Either that or here: ICAO / EU ATC Phraseology Mod - Version 2.0.1 (01-AUG-2021)
It’s called “confirmation bias”. It’s when someone is so sure they are right about something, they will overlook things like what you noted about the views he posted, if those things tend to confirm their presumptive conclusions.
Support for Multiple monitors is in the pipeline for development. It’s currently slated for delivery in 2021-2022.
I always wonder why people who are concerned with the “direction the sim is taking” don’t follow the development updates that are given by the team every week?
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.