13 hours ago, Gary1124 said:

I don't know if Austin himself flies or not.

I guess you have never watched any videos about how xplane came about. If you did, you would understand why Flight modelling is a big thing for Austin ,and why fancy graphics is not a big consideration for Flight training.

40 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

I guess you have never watched any videos about how xplane came about. If you did, you would understand why Flight modelling is a big thing for Austin ,and why fancy graphics is not a big consideration for Flight training.

And Austin isn't "only" a pilot with decades of flying experience, but also an aerospace engineer with decades of experience. So, he's looking into it more from the engineering aspect and that's one of the reasons why RW aviation companies use X-Plane (Airbus, Boeing, Cessna, NASA, ...) for development - of course not only, but as one of their tools.

17 hours ago, Gary1124 said:

not practical essentials of a TOTAL realistic flight experience.

I'll get round to recording a decent video of AutoATC sometime, last few haven't been great quality, mostly because setting up all the recording then doing the flight in VR is stupidly time consuming and "just" as hard as a real flight...

last one I did was:

first one I did is perversely better audio recording quality, but a lot more bugs and "before VR"

 thread for it here is:

There are other alternatives to, if you are US based, then there is no beating the $20 a month for pilot edge

https://www.pilotedge.net/

Then of course, there is vatsim.

9 hours ago, Gary1124 said:

BUT. It CAN be done better. Doesn't Laminar have access to the same voice sets in default FSX/P3D? 

 

ATC stuff is ..... bleeping hard... to implement. Like, you can just about imagine how hard simulating an air traffic controller is - that much is fairly well understood, everything else (all the systems an air traffic controller relies on, and may or may not have access to), not so much, AutoATC aims for as close a fully integrated simulation as possible, and OMG did I underestimate how hard that was going to be, anything else short of pilotedge has had to make significant compromises in realism to get to something that "at least works", which is why pilotedge sticks to such a confined area:

https://www.pilotedge.net/pages/operating-hours-and-service-area

"voice" is the least of those problems.

9 hours ago, Gary1124 said:

I'm sure it is technologically possible to it to handle AI Planes. Why not?

It is, but testing it is even harder than building it, which is why no one else has even tried imho

doing testing "properly" is kinda akin to reading the matrix.

 

I understand ATC is hard to do. And I'm not taking anything away from the accomplishments X-Plane has already achieved. There is a lot I like about it and Im enthused about upcoming 12.

But my point applies to all simulators. The resources they put into things that are not pertinent to flying, like scenery quality are astounding compared to what is done with ATC. MSFS implementation is a huge leap ovet FSX but could be better also. We shouldn't have to rely on third party to provide what should be built into the code. I imagine F+ + Software who makes MCE runs on a smaller budget than Laminar but they were able to get voice recognition into P3D ATC. This tech is not new anymore and much of it is repiticious and therefor computer capable in a sim.

16 minutes ago, Gary1124 said:

But my point applies to all simulators. The resources they put into things that are not pertinent to flying, like scenery quality are astounding compared to what is done with ATC.

imho that is simply because those who really care about it are a tiny tiny minority - and $20 a month is a small price to pay for a "perfect" atc simulation, the rest of the world is up the dirty creek without a paddle because the commitment to getting even remotely close to real world experience is so enormous and there is no chance for a return on investment.

AutoATC happened because I personally had no other options than $750 per 5 minutes (puts that $20 a month into perspective...). 

for everybody else, vatsim or pointy clicky 124th ATC is perfectly acceptable. 

A single air traffic controller is getting paid what? $50k a year from a quick google, the systems that support them are multi million dollar projects that dwarf anything Laminar - or anyone else - has invested in the flight sim side. "Just" Heathrow has spent $100s of millions developing its local airspace control systems.

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

imho that is simply because those who really care about it are a tiny tiny minority - and $20 a month is a small price to pay for a "perfect" atc simulation, the rest of the world is up the dirty creek without a paddle because the commitment to getting even remotely close to real world experience is so enormous and there is no chance for a return on investment.

AutoATC happened because I personally had no other options than $750 per 5 minutes (puts that $20 a month into perspective...). 

for everybody else, vatsim or pointy clicky 124th ATC is perfectly acceptable. 

A single air traffic controller is getting paid what? $50k a year from a quick google, the systems that support them are multi million dollar projects that dwarf anything Laminar - or anyone else - has invested in the flight sim side. "Just" Heathrow has spent $100s of millions developing its local airspace control systems.

To be honest I'm not looking for perfect. I'm looking for believeable basics. Something akin to what MS had for FSX and carried over to P3D. Voices to, they don't sound bad. Possibly the inclusion of some Star and Instrument vectoring at the big airports like Hartsfield, Kennedy, Ohare, Heathrow etc. That could even be adjustable for user submission in the SDK actually. Possibly a basic emergency declaration which would trigger a vector to alternate and clearing of all AI traffic.

It is time consuming and expensive but that could be mitigated by taking some time from things like trees and water and localized snow. And voice is easy. MCE did it for the MS family and for X-plane. It just uses speech to text in which spoken key words are tranlated to the preformated click responses. It isn't truly contextual but it is working with an engine that is 20 years old now to. A lot of people have systems that can handle the extra load these days also. Mine is 2018 concurrent actually and I average 25 fps and max settings with Orbx stuff on P3D and 80 plus on X-plane with max settings. Austin could have just done an ATC and traffic upgrade for 11 and I would have been happy. It looks more authentic in my local region than plain P3D did and the airports are mostly ringers for real. Just saying. 

Just now, Gary1124 said:

Something akin to what MS had for FSX and carried over to P3D.

well, what I found hard has never been covered by any of the "point click" options.

namely

hearing, remembering and correctly reading back comms (especially in the heli where writing stuff down isn't an option).

understanding/comprehension - it took a lot of practice to understand the garbled crackly messages being received - especially around terrain - and feel confident with what I was being asked to do and what needed to be included in the reply.

Situational awareness - quickly understanding if that plane that just called a message really clearly on the radio is in conflict with your flight path, since you know they are close and moving fast even though you cant see them yet.

8 minutes ago, Gary1124 said:

It just uses speech to text in which spoken key words are tranlated to the preformated click responses.

this works relatively well for heavily "scripted" IFR flights where you are more at the will of the ATC controller than commanding your own flight, not so much when you are PPL VFR at low altitude moving in and out of controlled airspace at your own discretion.

36 minutes ago, mSparks said:

well, what I found hard has never been covered by any of the "point click" options.

namely

hearing, remembering and correctly reading back comms (especially in the heli where writing stuff down isn't an option).

understanding/comprehension - it took a lot of practice to understand the garbled crackly messages being received - especially around terrain - and feel confident with what I was being asked to do and what needed to be included in the reply.

Situational awareness - quickly understanding if that plane that just called a message really clearly on the radio is in conflict with your flight path, since you know they are close and moving fast even though you cant see them yet.

this works relatively well for heavily "scripted" IFR flights where you are more at the will of the ATC controller than commanding your own flight, not so much when you are PPL VFR at low altitude moving in and out of controlled airspace at your own discretion.

To your last point that is so far how I have used MCE. It works the same as the click menu but it is important at controller hand off to check in with complete tail number. Most of my P3D simming is VFR. I almost exclusively use A2A Skylane or Bonanza V-tail if I want to make better time. I got spoiled by the A2A implementation and the Skylane is just like the one I take lessons in. 530/430 stack and all. Now, in X-Plane I do IFR plans mostly if I am destined for a towered airport. Untoward to untowered I just do "go through the motiins" UNICOM. Also, in P3D I tune my own frequencies rather than let the menu do it. Bear in mind, I'm trying to earn a PPL.  I don't regard or use either platform as a game but a tool.

On 7/19/2022 at 7:35 PM, Gary1124 said:

If Austin wants to tout his simulation as most realistic he should devote a lot more to correct and convincing ATC system. I don't know if Austin himself flies or not. If he is a pilot he should know how much the ATC envoronment plays in flying. Scrap the pretty trees. Scrap the pretty water. Just fix and improve the ATC. Once more casuals, gamers, young, are taking lead in a sim. Most of the improvements are geared toward visuals, not practical essentials of a TOTAL realistic flight experience.

You'd be surprised how little ATC services in simulators are used by real professional pilots (such as @Janov). Most of these users are just glad not to have to request, read back, beg, acknowledge and endure aural noise in their headset speakers. And if they need the fix, they're most likely on VATSIM/IVAO anyway. 

It's mostly the amateurs like us who put an emphasis on any ATC utilities.

 

17 hours ago, Gary1124 said:

BUT. It CAN be done better. Doesn't Laminar have access to the same voice sets in default FSX/P3D? 

Nay.

 

17 hours ago, Gary1124 said:

What about Pilot2ATC? That does it better. I'm sure it is technologically possible to it to handle AI Planes. Why not? Default controls UTC and Traffic Global and Alpha India etc. 

P2ATC uses Windows' SAPI voices, i.e. pure text to speech. These are not available on the other platforms (MacOS, Linux) that X-Plane has to cover.

FSX/P3D's default ATC can handle third party AI aircraft because it was built that way.

 

17 hours ago, Gary1124 said:

I just bought MCE for my P3D set-up. I now talk to the default. Of yeah, it also can talk to PFE and Radar Contact. If as much mental effort were put into the practical essentials like accurate ATC as is put onto eye candy we would be able to declare emergencies and the whole 9. VATSIM and IVAO are great if there's enough controllers on-line. Pilot Edge is great out West I am sure. But to fill in the gaps there should be packaged. I pay a bill by phone every month. It's a bot. If I say thank you at the end of the call it says your welcome, hsve a great day. The tech is there.

 

5 hours ago, Gary1124 said:

Possibly the inclusion of some Star and Instrument vectoring at the big airports like Hartsfield, Kennedy, Ohare, Heathrow etc. That could even be adjustable for user submission in the SDK actually. Possibly a basic emergency declaration which would trigger a vector to alternate and clearing of all AI traffic.

That's exactly the situations that are extremely hard to implement and require the out-of-the-box thinking that only an actual, human ATC controller can provide. When does a controller decide to vector instead of sticking to a STAR and standard approach? When does a controller issue shortcuts on STARs? How does a controller judge if it's acceptable to allow route deviations for weather? How does a controller issue altitude clearances upon departure? How does a controller sandwich a fast flight between to slower ones? When does a controller deny airspace transitions? How does a controller keep other flights out of the way if there's an emergency?

Of course these things can all be parametrised, simplified and generalized, but even how well it is coded, there'll always be experts out there who just want their virtual controllers to behave just like the real Boston John or Kennedy Steves with their quick wit and the right shortcuts to get an armchair Four Stripe Freddy home on time on a friday afternoon.

 

5 hours ago, Gary1124 said:

Just saying. 

XP12 will very most likely not be for you if good out of the box ATC is so important to you. Just saying.

4 hours ago, Bjoern said:

When does a controller deny airspace transitions?

On one of the last training flights i did the instructor didnt fire up the transponder, didnt announce we had taken off and missed a compulsory reporting point to exit the airspace.

Then acted all surprised and started complaining when ATC denied everything he asked for. I just found it mildly amusing and enjoyed flying fun holding patterns.

4 hours ago, Bjoern said:

Most of these users are just glad not to have to request, read back, beg, acknowledge and endure aural noise in their headset speakers.

Its deeper than that, the pilot training requirements dont extend much past answering some multiple choice questions and proving you can understand what they are saying on some dodgy ATC recordings.

Its only VERY recently (2019) EASA even bothered to properly start documenting the standard phraseology in a way that doesn't require jumping hundreds of pages at a time in several 1000 page documents. 

And it looks they stole your phrasebook format to do so:

https://contentzone.eurocontrol.int/phraseology/

That or "great minds think alike"

8 hours ago, Gary1124 said:

Bear in mind, I'm trying to earn a PPL.  I don't regard or use either platform as a game but a tool.

mentioning unicom implies US.

Simply no beating pilotedge. You are exactly their target audience. (EASA/ICAO countries have fairly different airport procedures and controller systems)

https://www.pilotedge.net/pages/cat-ratings

If you want some cheap practice time AutoATC paid app works with and without XPlane, both got me through my PPLH, but Im ICAO rather than FAA.

Edited July 20, 20223 yr by mSparks

16 hours ago, mSparks said:

And it looks they stole your phrasebook format to do so:

https://contentzone.eurocontrol.int/phraseology/

That or "great minds think alike"

Well, it's magnitudes more complete than what I scribbled down and it's great that there finally is a resource like this out there!

On 7/18/2022 at 7:05 AM, Gary1124 said:

Flight Modeling. Better than MS. I'm going for PPL in a C182 and I also nearly exclusively sim A2A. I can tell you the flight modeling is a step up 

 

Do you mean that the flight model in XP11 makes it better than we got with A2A planes in P3D or FSX with regard to flight model ?

4 hours ago, jfri said:

Do you mean that the flight model in XP11 makes it better than we got with A2A planes in P3D or FSX with regard to flight model ?

Do you know why xplane came about?? If you dont, time to research. Than you would know the answer.

9 hours ago, jfri said:

Do you mean that the flight model in XP11 makes it better than we got with A2A planes in P3D or FSX with regard to flight model ?

Very close. But, I haven't simmed a Skylane in XP 11. But, I can tell you I can't tell the difference between A2A and the actual Skylane. Very similar with the main difference being the control forces of course. I believe XP has a better modeling of that in the Sensitivity calibration. All of mine have the right column sliders full left. It gives a "heavier" feel to my CH Yoke. Seems to at least.

On 7/20/2022 at 7:24 PM, mSparks said:

On one of the last training flights i did the instructor didnt fire up the transponder, didnt announce we had taken off and missed a compulsory reporting point to exit the airspace.

Then acted all surprised and started complaining when ATC denied everything he asked for. I just found it mildly amusing and enjoyed flying fun holding patterns.

Its deeper than that, the pilot training requirements dont extend much past answering some multiple choice questions and proving you can understand what they are saying on some dodgy ATC recordings.

Its only VERY recently (2019) EASA even bothered to properly start documenting the standard phraseology in a way that doesn't require jumping hundreds of pages at a time in several 1000 page documents. 

And it looks they stole your phrasebook format to do so:

https://contentzone.eurocontrol.int/phraseology/

That or "great minds think alike"

mentioning unicom implies US.

Simply no beating pilotedge. You are exactly their target audience. (EASA/ICAO countries have fairly different airport procedures and controller systems)

https://www.pilotedge.net/pages/cat-ratings

If you want some cheap practice time AutoATC paid app works with and without XPlane, both got me through my PPLH, but Im ICAO rather than FAA.

I would consider Auto ATC if it wouldn't tie up my phone. I think my Tab E can pick up voice though. I will have to check.