Yeah, I know. I watch all the Q&As. Typically after the fact because they always happen while I’m at work. I know it was mentioned.
We’ve seen a few tiny changes here and there to ATC and ATIS over the last 11 months, but really nothing very significant so far. Outside of ATC having somewhat better awareness of mountains and some minor phraseology changes, there hasn’t been a bunch of significant improvements.
I do hope we start seeing some real, tangible changes in both ATC and ATIS sometime soon. I’m tired of being assigned departures and approaches with cross and tail winds when AI / Live traffic is being directed to correct runways for the conditions. Sometimes in the opposite direction from the runway I’m being assigned.
Yes, same here.
I think it’s a matter of time. They seem to be working on it.
But as mentioned earlier it’s all deeply linked within the systems so they have to get the weather, navigation (data and interpretation), terrain awareness, METAR and ATC to work together. That’s one hell of a job.
Yeah, I understand how the systems are interconnected. Changing one aspect can have major cascading effects on other parts of the sim.
Really, this stuff really should have been built from scratch for the 2020s vs repurposing old code from the early 2000s. Really, that’s the core of the issue. The sim was built around a core of legacy code and now it’s way more work to re-write everything to work than it would have been to just write it from scratch in the first place.
That got the product out the door quicker, but now the amount of effort required to make up for that is staggering and will take a LONG time.
Folks.. I’m an ATC idiot. I don’t use it. But it could be helpful, if one of you ATC-savants would make a list here, of things that are actually going wrong with ATC. Actual complaints, instead of general grievances. It will be a lot of work to make that list.. but it would certainly help. There are many many separate ATC topics now, that don’t get relevant attention.
I’m not entirely sure on that.
I think they have saved a big amount of time to base their sim on what was already there. It’s a lot of code. They changed and rewrote what they thought was nessicary. The visual/rendering engine, the weather engine, streaming from bing/azure etc.
They built on top of the old code because there was already so much there that worked and is/was good.
This whole thing is a work in progress essentially but it was working (in the base) from launch day.
After that they started working on improving the other systems.
I’ve seen this ■■■■ happen far too often. I’ve been in software development for close to 30 years now. Without failure, whenever I’ve seen large, new projects started on a foundation of old code in order to “get it done faster”, it’s always and without exception ended up taking far more time and effort to fix the issues that arise from melding legacy code with new code. And in the long run, it ends up costing a lot more in term of man hours than it would have been to just study how the old systems worked and rewrote them in the first place. But decision makers don’t tend to consider that, as that’s in a different budget for different years, so it doesn’t matter. Selling out tomorrow to profit today.
There are already a crapload of those in the bug and wishlist sections you can peruse at your leisure.
I believe the OP is actually referring to the Q/A session where they said there were some “super exciting” developments in mind for ATC coming via Microsoft China - I think it was.
So Crunchmeister is correct as far as I’m concerned. The Hotfix is not what the OP was talking about, rather more the overarching improvements to the ATC.
I won’t be too harsh on the guy. He’s been a member here for about a week. He has no contextual reference for what we’re talking about. His perspective on MSFS is still quite limited to what he’s experienced since SU5 / Xbox launch.
PS Calling me the “most toxic person here” quite literally made me laugh out loud. It shows he’s new. lol
Very gracious of you I think I am finding it increasingly tedious around here now following the X-box launch. I think I’m going to have a self imposed break from the forums.
Commenting on a post with an off-topic reply is not being helpful. I genuinely was asking how your post was relevant. You seem to think it is somehow, but it isn’t. You seem to be the only one in this thread that doesn’t see it.
Perhaps you should actually watch the video linked in the OP and understand what’s being talked about vs resorting to name-calling when it’s pointed out that the info you provided is incorrect based on your lack of context of the conversation. . Then you can actually participate in the conversation in an informed way with meaningful information.
personally, I would like them to do simple stages and list what they have changed… for example.. where I fly, they know the capabilities of the aircraft.. so no ATC would tell a Cessna 172 to climb to FL220 because it’s freakin impossible, but in msfs2020 once ATC has said that, the ONLY way to get out of it is to cancel IFR.. fly VFR until near to landing then try to re-establish IFR again. In addition to that.. if I have filed a flightplan at the airport which says I am flying at 4000ft.. then oddly enough.. ATC respects that and doesn’t tell me to climb to 7000 ft. If I have got the height wrong because of terrain.. then they don’t accept the flight plan before I leave Finally I would like to get an ATC response that says unable to comply.. that way, it can rethink what it is trying to do.
To my mind.. these three things would really improve the ATC… for anyone wanting to see any of these issues.. just try doing a Low Altitude airways flight into Heathrow and setting your altitude on the flight planner to 3000ft and choose ILS 27L or 27R approach… you will get told to go to 3000ft.. then 7000ft then 11000 ft then back to 3000 ft and if you are really lucky.. once you have captured the glideslope, you will be asked to climb to 7000ft again when less than 2 miles from the apron.. it really is a farce sometimes
To see a Cessna being told to go to FL220.. try departing Heathrow in a 172 for somewhere like Bristol with a low altitude flight plan of maybe 6000ft and I pretty much guarantee that when you get transfered to London Control after clearing the airport you will get.. climb to FL150.. climb to FL200.. climb to FL220 all in quick sucession or similar
Oh and yes. all these issues have been reported to Zendesk since Septemer last year.
Finally I would like to get an ATC response that says unable to comply.. that way, it can rethink what it is trying to do.