What do you think of the FSX ATC engine & functions?

How do you evaluate the FSX ATC engine & its functions?

What would you like as improvements?

What are its drawbacks?

Nick

Good boy, Nick! Are you going to come up with a new ATC program?

I would say for the time that it came out, it does a fairly decent job...not perfect, but decent.

It would be great if when passing over different countries, that the ATC voice would speak with the proper accent, all in English, of course!

Only drawbacks that I can come up with are No way to declare emergencies and ask to divert somewhere else, or land immediately. You have to be kind of constructive to accomplish that now. Also, ATC will forget about you every once in a while when you are flying IFR somewhere.

How do you evaluate the FSX ATC engine & its functions?

 

What would you like as improvements?

 

What are its drawbacks?

Nick

Uuh that's gonna be a long list^^

However what annoys me most, without question is that ATC keeps naging you and giving you completly stupid instructions if you divert a tiny bit from your prefiled flight plan.

E.g. if you climb out of an airport a bit differently than intially planned for some reason and rejoin your flightplan at the second waypoint ATC will keep telling you to set a course to the first waypoint even if you're say 200 nm away and you won't get any intelligent orders from ATC until you're handed to the approach controller.

Apart from that I'd like it to:

handle SIDs and STARs

simulate Ground Ops better (e.g. request push&start)

handle traffic better (at the moment lots of unneccesairy go-arounds)

However I'm still staying with it not using any ATC add-ons because I think the voices are really well emulated in e.g. PF3 ATC they sound way worse.

Cheers!

P.S. I'd also be rooting for a new ATC add-on!! :-D

Biggest bugbear is the endless frequency changes. I know there's add ons to hand these off to a copilot abut that's just another overhead. Also, agree with above posters.

I still use Radar Contact 4 since it first evolved and can't seem to find a "better" alternative that does both ATC and Otto as my copilot. I had wondered if P3D might look at improving ATC functionality but as its primarily an educational sim for flight to them, I don't think that will happen.

How do you evaluate the FSX ATC engine & its functions?

 

What would you like as improvements?

 

What are its drawbacks?

 

 

Nick

Go back through more than ten years of posts and topics and you will have your answer.

With so many aftermarket addons the criticism of the default is no longer relevant.

How do you evaluate the FSX ATC engine & its functions?

 

Nick

For what it is, a portion of an inexpensive program trying to emulate the complexities of human activities, it's pretty good. Even the best of the so-called AI out there, in any field, can't completely handle things as well as the Mark I human, but things such as VATSIM have set people's expectations pretty high for ATC functions.

That being said, it does have many quirks, including a lack of awareness of terrain and a tendency to be rather stubborn and insistent at times -- none of the flexibility that is automatic with the Mark I human (and they take a lot of training and experience, BTW) -- and there are add-ons that improve things, which is true of the weather engine, add-on aircraft, add-on scenery, etc.

So having even the default ATC in such an inexpensive sim is actually pretty good.

HAHAHA Don't get me started. I can't stand the basic crap that is FS ATC.

What I'd like to see:

1) SID & STAR capability

2) When ATC says clear to land, that means it's REALLY clear to land

3) Emergencies. Squawk 7500, 7600, 7700 and ATC does its thing. Squawk 7500 and two F-16's should meet with you.

4) Fly over restricted airspace and you're met with military aircraft giving you vectors to get lost. If not, they shot you down! LOL

5) No more ATC controlled flight into terrain.

6) Code improvements. Like if I fly onto the North side of KLSC or into KHMN, ATC won't have me climb and then descend withen a span of a few minutes due to terrain.

7) True aircraft separation and warnings.

Read here: https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?306278-If-I-won-the-lotto

Go back through more than ten years of posts and topics and you will have your answer.

With so many aftermarket addons the criticism of the default is no longer relevant.

Thanks to all for your constructive replies.

Later tonight I will post some of the ATC functions not covered in FS, like FSS and some others as well.

Nick

FSS stands for FLIGHT SERVICE STATION.

In his book "Avoiding Common Pilot Errors--An Air Traffic Controller's View", John Stewart writes somewhere (p. 29):

"When a pilot tries to airfile directly with the enroute or approach controller, there are usually two factors which determine whether the controller will issue the clearance or require that the pilot file the flight plan with the FSS."

So, FSS is (another??) place where you file your flight plan.

I am still in the beginning of this book, but it is clear it contains lots of ATC functions not available in fs9 or fsx.

I will next describe what he says about ATIS on p.34--which is as far as I have read. as 120 pages....

I highly recommend the book to all whoe what to learn two things: how ATC works and fly better.

Nickge

Just to be clear, a Flight Service Station (FSS) is NOT ATC. It is a separate FAA entity that provides services to pilots such as filing flight plans (which they will forward to ATC if it is an IFR flight plan, or just keep it until it is closed if it is a VFR flight plan), giving the pilots preflight weather briefings, including NOTAMS, as well as providing inflight weather reports, even taking PIREPS.

They DO NOT control anything, and are not part of ATC (Air Traffic Control). Their middle name "Service" says it all. So they are not emulated in the sim.

Inuss,

Thanks--very informative,

Nick

Thanks to all for your constructive replies.

 

Later tonight I will post some of the ATC functions not covered in FS, like FSS and some others as well.

 

Nick

You missed the point of my previous reply: The reply is ONLY relevant if it also covers the limitations or deficiencies of ALL the aftermarket options. I am sure after more than ten years of using default ATC we are MORE than aware of all of its limitations.

As we are more than certain of why they exist...

mallcot,

Where is your post where I missed the point? I do not see it on the page.

Repost it perhaps?

The one thing I often wondered about is that with NextGen being phased in, I think they may change radio coms from analog to digital. And knowing a thing or two about radio coms, that will be a whole new animal in terms of how we communicate in the Sim. I mean, if they do in fact go digital, you don't dial in a frequency. You just select a channel so to speak. So it be like, " American 878, you are leaving my airspace, contact departure on 135."

In fact the frequency usage would be reduced to perhaps only 10 frequencies where all ATC coms use. This is called trunking.

But I have no idea if they will in fact enact such a system. I've only read about it. The military was spending crap tons of money for JSTARS and that never even made it. Perhaps amplitude modulation will stick around for another few decades until satellite coms ultimately take over. To me, that makes most sense for ETOPS.

ATIS stands for Automatic Terminal Information Service.

:)

The book says:

"ATIS is simply a tape recorded statement that is broadcast over a frequency set aside only for this purpose. The recording is usually 30 to 60 seconds long and contains information reegarding the current weather, the runways and approaches in use at the aiirport, specific unusual conditions such as wind shear, braking action, bird activity, or runway and taxiway closures. It also advises about equipment outages and gives general instructions relevant to that airport's operation. Each new recording is identified by an alphabet code which changes sequentially from A to Z when an ATIS is updated. For example, a tape might begin by the controller saying "This is Medianville Airport Information Alpha."

Some larger facilities use two ATIS frequencies and assign one for arrival aircraft (ATIS codes A through M) and the other for departure aircraft (ATIS codes N through Z). A lot of pilos complain that these broadcasts are too long and contain too much information and that they have to listen to them twice to be sure that they hear all of the information. What they fail to realize is that if ATIS did not exist, a controller would have to broadcast that information to every pilot who callled on the frequency. At a place like Atlanta, that would result in an additional 2500-3000 30-to-60-second broadcasts each day. That works out to between 20 and 40 hours of controller talk just to accomplish what each pilot spends two or three minutes doing."

"ATIS is simply a tape recorded statement that is broadcast over a frequency set aside only for this purpose. The recording is usually 30 to 60 seconds long and contains information reegarding the current weather, the runways and approaches in use at the aiirport, specific unusual conditions such as wind shear, braking action, bird activity, or runway and taxiway closures. It also advises about equipment outages and gives general instructions relevant to that airport's operation. Each new recording is identified by an alphabet code which changes sequentially from A to Z when an ATIS is updated. For example, a tape might begin by the controller saying "This is Medianville Airport Information Alpha."

Some larger facilities use two ATIS frequencies and assign one for arrival aircraft (ATIS codes A through M) and the other for departure aircraft (ATIS codes N through Z). A lot of pilos complain that these broadcasts are too long and contain too much information and that they have to listen to them twice to be sure that they hear all of the information. What they fail to realize is that if ATIS did not exist, a controller would have to broadcast that information to every pilot who callled on the frequency. At a place like Atlanta, that would result in an additional 2500-3000 30-to-60-second broadcasts each day. That works out to between 20 and 40 hours of controller talk just to accomplish what each pilot spends two or three minutes doing."

Nick

The one thing I often wondered about is that with NextGen being phased in, I think they may change radio coms from analog to digital.

They can't do that any time soon, unless it is run in parallel with the analog for many years, since it would require all new radio equipment on all aircraft, an expense that many (including the airlines) can't afford. Avionics are EXPENSIVE! A "cheap," non-TSO'd* radio is a couple of grand or more, plus installation. And a lot of today's radios are integrated with the so-called "glass panels," thus requiring additional expense.

And, depending on how they implement it, there might be a need for all new antennas, as well, which by the time installation is complete, aren't cheap, either. So it's a major undertaking.

Note that ADS-B out (a big part of NEXT-GEN) is required in most aircraft by 2020, and it has taken them on the order of 20 years or so to get that implemented, and it's a relatively inexpensive change. It even took them several years to require transponders just in certain airspace, a relatively cheap addition ($500 or so plus installation, in the cheaper units).

And it's a lot more than just cost to the aircraft owners, too. They have to make certain that things work and don't cause interference with existing equipment, among other things, not an overnight process.

* TSO is Technical Standard Order, and represents a very expensive certification process for aircraft equipment. A TSO isn't required for all radio stuff, but for many operations (including most operations above FL180) it is required.

mallcot,

 

Where is your post where I missed the point? I do not see it on the page.

Repost it perhaps?

https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?313219-What-do-you-think-of-the-FSX-ATC-engine-amp-functions&p=2059653#post2059653

What I am saying is: Don't bother. We are well aware of the faults and foibles of default ATC. Some of us have more than a decade of experience with not only the default, but also the alternatives.

The only way this becomes a useful exercise is if it covers ALL, or at the very least most, of the ATC alternatives and how they do, or do not, fix the `faults`with the default. Just repeating old knowledge? Irrelevant and futile, when the search engine can elicit that information with ease.

ATC in FSX could be better. We ALL know that - or have access to the information.

They can't do that any time soon, unless it is run in parallel with the analog for many years, since it would require all new radio equipment on all aircraft, an expense that many (including the airlines) can't afford. Avionics are EXPENSIVE! A "cheap," non-TSO'd* radio is a couple of grand or more, plus installation. And a lot of today's radios are integrated with the so-called "glass panels," thus requiring additional expense.

 

And, depending on how they implement it, there might be a need for all new antennas, as well, which by the time installation is complete, aren't cheap, either. So it's a major undertaking.

 

Note that ADS-B out (a big part of NEXT-GEN) is required in most aircraft by 2020, and it has taken them on the order of 20 years or so to get that implemented, and it's a relatively inexpensive change. It even took them several years to require transponders just in certain airspace, a relatively cheap addition ($500 or so plus installation, in the cheaper units).

 

And it's a lot more than just cost to the aircraft owners, too. They have to make certain that things work and don't cause interference with existing equipment, among other things, not an overnight process.

---

* TSO is Technical Standard Order, and represents a very expensive certification process for aircraft equipment. A TSO isn't required for all radio stuff, but for many operations (including most operations above FL180) it is required.

If they do go digital then the antenna will most likely not need to be changed as you are still on the aviation VHF band which the antenna was designed for. The only change would be the modulation method.

If they do go digital then the antenna will most likely not need to be changed as you are still on the aviation VHF band which the antenna was designed for. The only change would be the modulation method.

Which is why I said:

And, depending on how they implement it,

because there's no room in the aviation band at the moment for that sort of thing, and they might choose some other band. Of course they could modify the layout (bandplan) of their usage and implement digital in some segments, but I think a lot of the traffic will eventually go via something such as the ADS-B or such.

There's plenty of room in the aviation band. All you're doing is changing from AM to a digital modulation like P25 conventional or something. There's actually no room to change over to another band as it is. And why would you when the aviation band has already been assigned for that purpose?

Also, there's no "interpretation" anything. Modulation schemes don't require new antennas. Antennas are cut and designed for a specific band. Not modulation. The only thing that would change if aviation moves to digital format would be the radio.

ADS-B isn't meant to be a voice carrier. It just transmits PCM.

Also, there's no "interpretation" anything. Modulation schemes don't require new antennas. Antennas are cut and designed for a specific band. Not modulation. The only thing that would change if aviation moves to digital format would be the radio.

I'm well aware of antenna requirements being frequency, not modulation, and you're correct that IF it stays in the same band there would be no need to change them. And I don't know what you mean by "interpretation." That's not anything I discussed. But I DID say "And, depending on how they implement it" which is not the same as "interpret," if that's where you got it.

ADS-B isn't meant to be a voice carrier. It just transmits PCM.

That's true, at the moment, but it IS digital, and they COULD decide to use it for some form of communication -- I didn't say WOULD, I said COULD. I also said "but I think a lot of the traffic will eventually go via something such as the ADS-B or such" and did not specify that it WOULD be ADS-B.

Please read what I actually said. No one knows yet IF they will go digital, nor if they did does anyone know how they will implement it. If by digital you are thinking it would be the way police, etc. do it, perhaps what you say makes some sense, but there can be other ways of going digital. Anyway, this is pointless.

Goodbye.