We would like to gather specific feedback and questions on the current localization efforts to discuss in our upcoming February Development Stream. If you use MSFS in a language that is localized outside of English, please feel free to contribute below by answering this poll and using the reply template to respond once.
Poll: How would you rate your language localization on a scale of 1-10 (1 being very dissatisfied, 10 being very satisfied).
Open Questions
It is required to use this reply template to post in this thread.
This is not a thread for discussion, so you may post one response. Any other replies will be deleted.
- What language are you using in MSFS?
- What issues are you facing with localization in your language?
- What do you hope to see with localization in the future?
- If you have a question in regards to localization for the devs, please post it below:
1 Like
- What language are you using in MSFS?
international - the feedback applies to all languages basically
- What issues are you facing with localization in your language?
For now it looks like the types in there are still FS2004 as aircraft like the A220, Embraer E-Jets and the A350 are completely missing in the default lokPak. Also the structure itself seems a bit odd as aircraft types TTS includes sub models which would not be mentioned on real life ATC (example: a pilot would not be warned about a Boeing 737-800, he would be warned about a Boeing 737. Also he would not be warned about an A320 Neo but just about an A320 as minor visual differences don’t really matter 
usually the pilot will see just the silhouette of another aircraft, the specific light arrangement or contrails. If he can spot the visual difference between a 737-800 and the 737-400 it might be a bit too late to avoid any collision 
). Besides this the tag “Super” for flight numbers is missing, even if it’s basically exclusive to the A380 as being wake turbulence category J.
- What do you hope to see with localization in the future?
A new lokPak for ATC aircraft which includes aircraft type, aircraft manufacturer, aircraft model and probably a model name (e.g. “Skyhawk”) instead of this being part of the default locPak file and being limited to the two existing values. This can help on the general ATC improvements plnned. The list of models also can be shorter as one would not have to care about most aircraft sub types.
In general it could be clever to change and expand the parameters used on ATC for aircraft to bring in more fidelity. new parameters could be atc_model_name and atc_manufacturer while atc_type would be just about aircraft types and atc_model would be cleanded up and expanded. This would lead to the following possibilities:
[atc_model_name]+[registration]+', type '+[atc_manufacturer]+[atc_model_name] if no flight number was provided and model_name is not NULL (example: Skyhawk N40MS, type Cessna Skyhawk)
[atc_manufacturer]+[atc_registration]+', type '+[atc_manufacturer]+[model] if no flight number was provided and model_name is NULL (example: Learjet N40MS, type Learjet 45)
[atc_airline]+[atc_flightnumber]+[heavy]+', type '+[manufacturer]+[type] if there is a flight number and type_name is NULL (example: ANA123 Heavy, type Boeing 777)
[atc_airline]+[atc_flightnumber]+[heavy]+', type '+[atc_manufacturer]+[atc_model_name] if there is a flight number and model_name is not NULL (example: LTU 123 Heavy, type Lockheed TriStar)
Also as there can still be special “types” it would make also sense to use these when no flight number was set. Type should always overrule model_name on the registration:
[atc_type]+[atc_registration]+', type '+[atc_manufacturer]+[atc_mode_name] (example: Helicopter N40MS, type Guimbal Cabri OR Experimental N40MS, type Vans RV7, OR Ultralight N40MS, type JMB AIRCRAFT VL-3 Evolution)
Even if more related to the general ATC topic it would be good to have ATC definition fields to be as optional overwrites in aircraft.cfg - instead imho it would make sense to identify an aircraft type by already existing ICAO information in the [GENERAL] section. Some pseudocode:
if (atc_manufacturer == 0 && icao_manufacturer == 'BOEING'*) {
atc_manufacturer = TT:ATCCOM.ATC_NAME BOEING.0.text;
if (atc_model == 0 && icao_type == 'b73'*)
atc_model = TT:ATCCOM.AC_MODEL_B737.text;
- If you have a question in regards to localization for the devs, please post it below:
Would it be practical to create a separate lokPak for stuff like aircraft which are called the same around the globe?
1 Like
Hi all,
Some posts removed. Please remember that this questionnaire is for language outside of English:
Thank you!
2 Likes
- What language are you using in MSFS?
Simplified Chinese
- What issues are you facing with localization in your language?
- In-game ATC menu is bugged where first few rows of options has no text.
- ATC transcript translation is bad.
- Airports name in G1000/G3000 are translated and due to font issue displayed as blank characters.
- What do you hope to see with localization in the future?
- If you have a question in regards to localization for the devs, please post it below:
Not a localization issue but related to simmers who use Chinese Windows OS
MSFS’ default routing and navigation system are completely bugged and non-functionning on Chinese installation of Windows.
There’s an option in Windows to forcing non UTF-8 programs use another language. If this option changed to English, the bug metioned will be resolved.
For anyone who wants to contribute on this issue, Click on the button below to use this template:
Do you have the same issue if you follow the OP’s steps to reproduce it?
Provide extra information to complete the original description of the issue:
If relevant, provide additional screenshots/video:
