Proper ATC implementation needed?

Discussion Hub General Discussion
1

I’m currently thinking about implementing an ATC solution, because everything currently available is not satisfying.

Some ideas that came to my mind:

  • It should be possible to hear other players’ requests and clearances if they are on the same frequency (real voice and/or TTS)
  • It should be possible to use a guided procedure (comparable with what’s available in MSFS 2020).
  • There should be an interface to/for VATSIM and Co., so that in areas where they are online, there’s no AI air traffic control.
  • There should be one client application that handles everyting. No need to have x number of apps opened, each dealing with one aspect of it all.

What do you guys think? Other ideas?

Kind regards,

Ben

1 Like
2

Are you planning on Designing this, and programming this yourself ??

2 Likes
3

Hmm, ok, when flying currently, I hear ATC talk to other A/C and hear them talk back, missing something I think…
Asobo is working on the ATC issues, because standardization is not currently present. There are only so many different voices of people in the sim, 16 aviators currently. So lets say I choose 14 for my pilots voice, that same voice is used in ATC. Sometimes the ATC voice will say i.e., "Simmer 69, contact Atlanta approach on o n e 126.45, and sometimes my avatar voice will answer back, Atlanta Approach on 126.45, and not use the o n e. Same voice avatar. All computer generated voices, because o n e, is a fault of computer generated voices just like the word “don’t”. When listening to ATC or even a US WX Broadcast by the weather service they always caution you to “don ta drown, turn around” you can get the same “don ta” in the sim. FSX used real peoples voices, hence, the pronunciation is much better. I am going to that online simulator ATC place and see how they do it, to verify I’m not making wrong assumptions.
Additionally, not expert on correct ATC, but believe when you as Pilot report into new flight plan authority, i.e., Atlanta control, Simmer 69 with you FL210, they should acknowledge the report, with Simmer 69, Atlanta, Roger, altimeter is 29.98, (believe above 10,000 feet, no altimeter reading is needed) not, continue on present plan, or continued to AVON as planned, but again no expert, so cannot really say what is correct, just know it’s way different than FSX, and not as professional as I think it should be. And, in Europe, believe, ATC also assigns an airspeed for you to fly at, seems I have seen/heard that mentioned. So the "continue as planned or to AVON as planned may be a European procedure, we don’t as a rule do it here in the USA I don’t think.

I’m also sure the community will thank you, but, it may be overcome by events as the roadmap has this I think to be fast tracked for a fix, at least think by end of year, or Jan 2021.
Assumption on my part is the development of ATC was handled by a team, different people on the team got different voice parts and when coded into game, did not run through standardization protocols to iron out those issues that the community is finding. Bet this make real world pilots cringe each time they hear wrong procedures or words mispronounced. It gets me the “o n e & don ta”, it would have taken almost nothing to get 50 people in a room, and encode their voices with standard ATC terminology, again, development of this sim was and ongoing costs MONEY.

It is sort of like a new Recreational Vehicle, some manufacturers build em, shove em out the door, expecting dealer to fix anything the purchaser finds wrong, and some inspect the finished product for 7 days, with different team looking for mistakes to fix prior to shipment. It’s money either way, because manufacturer pays dealer to fix on the backend, like sim now, could have done it correct when building, now they got to go back in and fix it. Moderators, please do not disable this post, that ATC gets fixed is something all of us want.

1 Like
4

Yes, I’m a software developer and I own a software company. So, I can allocate resources to this if I need.
It’s not my goal to make money with it. :wink:

5

Okay, let me add:

  • ATC voices with different accents, depending on country.
  • Jurisdiction specific regulations / procedures (USA, EU, UK, …, …)
6

On the subject of altimeter settings. FL180 and above is IFR so, it will always be 29.92. I don’t have 2020 yet but, I get frustrated when I’m descending to assigned bellow FL180 and I get to assigned before Handoff Center gives me the setting and then I get told I’m at the wrong altitude. I only hope they can fix the problem with me not getting to acknowledge ATC in time due to radio traffic. They have like run-on sentence in dense traffic areas.

7

Good man. :smiley:

Will you be compiling a list of regional airfields that do not have ATC in MSFS, that do in reality?

It will be a long list.

Cheers.

8

I found this interesting since it sort of relates to this discussion. Think, below 10,000 (got to figure out terminology to search for answer) altimeter numbers are correct, about FL10, not so much because, oxygen percentages are so low, airplanes need to be pressurized but that is not reason. Sea Level pressure 29.92 is standard and then corrected for local area below FL10. In FSX, it’s always 29.92 no matter where you fly. I was assuming MSFS used the correct numbers for local conditions, have not seen a wide variety of that number, some, just not as often as I thought it would be. I also thought if plane is above FL10, the altimeter reading was not given, since not applicable.

1 Like
9

Found the data here it is: The Far Side
FAR 91.121 states that, when operating an aircraft below 18,000 feet MSL, pilots will maintain altitude by reference to an altimeter that is set to: 1) the current reported altimeter setting of a station along the route of flight and within 100 nautical miles of the aircraft; 2) the current reported altimeter setting of an appropriate available station; or, 3) in aircraft without a radio, the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate setting available before departure.

Link: https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/publications/directline/dl9_low.htm

Interesting discussion regarding altimeter incursions for planes. Guess it’s more important than I thought, the FL180 rule is also cited above. Half the time, I forget to check it, in FSX its default is 29.91 so have to change it, in MSFS it’s set at 29.92, and will have to check it.

10

It depends on the jurisdiction… FAA, Eurocontrol,…

11

You find the trans alt on navigation graphs such as Jeppesen or Navblue data. For example, on LFPG, trans alt is 5,000’. When you reach 5,000’, you set the altimeter to Standard, and at this moment, we use the FL terminology. Below, we’re using the feet terminology. It’s as simple as it is.

2 Likes
12

I think integrating all players in an instance to ATC would be a vast redesign of the ATC engine, I can’t see that happening. Use vat sim or something if you crave ultra realistic atc

13

You’ll probably see that happening :blush:

It won’t be part of MSFS, as I obviously don’t have access to the code. Therefore there’s not gonna be a redesign.
Vatsim doesn’t provide services everwhere.

14

I hope so! Now that the 320 wobble is gone, ATC is my next largest gripe. But I guess everybody would need to buy in to a 3rd party application for player driven ATC to work. I would happily pay £30-£40 for such a feature, as long as regional accents were included, and ATC accounted for all players on approach and take off clearances.

And ban live players from spawning on the runway!

1 Like
15

Unless you have live wx or are running a weather theme, you will be at 29.92. Its been that way for years. Center ATC will give you the correct pressure based on data from wx stations.

16

Sort of an aside, but every one of the planes is different on where to set the altimeter. I hunt for it in each different model. I like flying the Icon, but doing any thing in there is a hard chore finding where the switches/buttons are. So normally don’t set anything and do it all VFR. The TBM I try to get things setup prior to takeoff, and usually start that one from parking area. The 787 is just broken, and when testing something in that, just start at active runway. For all of them though, I should be as close to real world procedures as possible, but broken planes don’t inspire me to play by the rules much. To fly serious, I open up FSX and fly big iron there.

1 Like
17

Even if you fly VFR, you “should” be setting your altimeter to want a local ATIS, or ATC tells you.

18

You only hear ATC talking to “live traffic” and AI. You never hear the comms between ATC and other real players, just like you don’t see other players on your VFR maps or LNM. You only see and hear the other artificial traffic. Other players are in your instance of the game visually only. For all intents and purposes, it’s like they weren’t there at all.

My guess is this is done for the same reason that other players’ tail numbers are blanked out in MP - in case people use offensive call signs / numbers to keep the sim G-Rated.

1 Like
19

Wow, what is world coming to when you got to use offensive tail numbers or call signs? Sad, don’t multiplayer, just have not gotten the bug, but if you see me flying, I’m Smr069. Usually flying 787, but going back to TBM since it’s supposed to be the least bugged AC in the game for a turboprop.

20

N67622C - you are absolutely correct, and in most of them can find it and set it if I have info at hand. Since I usually try to fly IFR, I will either get it from ATC or ATIS. But my local AP does not have tower, not even sure they have ATIS, although they do have WX station at the AP. Usually fly out of a larger AP, since I can setup IFR plan there, not sure I can even do that from local AP. Guess give it a try sometime.
Not to take this Topic off thread. Aside from following check list in AC to get it going, what other steps should I take getting all the electronics setup properly. As another aside, I searched for and found several document on the FMC and how it works, not sure I can post them here. Nope, PDF and DOCX are not supported.