Topic: Online ATC

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Now we have invited our friends at IVAO and VATSIM to discuss these topics with us, but are there other organisations that represent thousands of users that I should invite? And are there any things FSX does wrong in this aspect we should be aware of?

[LH4371 58]

Now we have invited our friends at IVAO and VATSIM to discuss these topics with us, but are there other organisations that represent thousands of users that I should invite? And are there any things FSX does wrong in this aspect we should be aware of?

If this includes VATSIM/IVAO/xxx integration in general than I may want to refer to my previous post which might have gotten lost: http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=29444&view=findpost&p=185435

Regarding ATC et al I would wish that once you are connected to eg VATSIM the active = manned controller positions and freq should be automatically used in the flight map/FMS systems. And unavailble should be greyed out. Say when TWR is usually 123.45 and the VATSIM TWR controller uses for whatever reason 123.55 then this freq should be shown in any inflight resources and databases to seemlessly integrate in the sim.

Phil

[flightvision 0]

@LH4371:

The things you were mentioning in the post are in my opinion things of less relevance. The proposed rating system will be not trustable without checkrides. Points for well-done flights can only be as ridiculous as they are in FSPassengers.

The proposed frequency exchange with the networks sounds good - this requires an API that Online Network Pilot clients can talk to.

Thank you for incorporating online networks in your development planning

I have never developped a pilot client for the networks, but the key capabilities of the sim should be:

* ability for external programs (modules) to open custom windows within the Sim

* ability to read plane position/alt/hdg+all axis angles/groundspeed/com frequencies/XPDR code (and mode?)

* ability to insert (AI) planes into the simulation

* ability to write weather data to the SIM (preferrably just give it a METAR) or allow real time weather in the sim (I think you are planning that, as well) - anyhow, sometimes it makes sense to be able to select the network's weather, see ActiveSky where they have this possibility. Mind that upper winds are important, too.

Really great would be:

* ability to read transponder mode. Set Standby/A/C/S from the cockpit, not in the pilot client, as we have now

* updateable Nav-database (I think you mentioned that earlier)

* updateable Groundlayouts of not-sceneried airports (aca AFCAD)

* option "do not pause when switching windows" (quite important for online flyers)

A good API and good userbase or good potential in the sim will be the key that Online Network software will be developped.

I praise your mentioning of a good API, and your experience in the feelings of Addon products developpers will make this a great sim

[flying-w 2]

Appolgies if I go out of scope here. I'm sure VATSIM et al is a great experience, but my time to fly is very limited and often interrupted. Is the intention to also include a completely mechanical ATC like FSX, only better? If so, it would be great for that ATC to include speed orders, holding patterns, and better management of the approach airspace that avoid the crazy final turns and go arounds in FSX today.

Simon

[Schullebernd 13]

The communities like IVAO/VATSIM have there own tools to manage the online ATC feature. I think a standard feature would be nice but not flexible enough for the huge requirements of the ATC functionality. In my opinion the new FS should provide a big and wide API for better interacting with the FS. (Like Teamspeak 3 technology, ...)

Thinking about including an online ATC feature would be too much maybe!

[Pi@no 17]

Only an idea... don't know if it's possible because of the work amount, but...

What do you think to use "Dragon Naturally Speaking" engine for exemple (or to create your own but I think it's too much work)

to recognize the voice of the user. (the words that the user says)

Imagine if the user can communicate (with a Microphone) with the ATC (generated by the computer btw), it must be amazing !

Do you think you can try to contact they (or another firm) the see if you can use a part of their engine ?

[frkaipanika 9]

Why to have two separate online ATC organizations. With their own servers... non-stop "fighting" which one is better. Who is having better controllers and pilots.

Aerosoft should provide one big, fast server ...where all comunications should be done... Everything on the one server... pilots, controllers .. (something like WOW)

Of course with simple and efficient software implemented into AFS2012 with easy voice and connection interface.

[darem 106]

Appolgies if I go out of scope here. I'm sure VATSIM et al is a great experience, but my time to fly is very limited and often interrupted. Is the intention to also include a completely mechanical ATC like FSX, only better? If so, it would be great for that ATC to include speed orders, holding patterns, and better management of the approach airspace that avoid the crazy final turns and go arounds in FSX today.

Simon

I completely second that.

[avrolino 0]

I completely second that.

having said that , if AI ATC is done , could voice recogntion be implemented or do you want to leave that for add-on developers? Maybe that could be a spin-off for a new topic

[ludoboss 2]

Why to have two separate online ATC organizations. With their own servers... non-stop "fighting" which one is better. Who is having better controllers and pilots.

Aerosoft should provide one big, fast server ...where all comunications should be done... Everything on the one server... pilots, controllers .. (something like WOW)

Of course with simple and efficient software implemented into AFS2012 with easy voice and connection interface.

But obviously, unlike WOW, it should be free !!

[Aetos1160 4]

Appolgies if I go out of scope here. I'm sure VATSIM et al is a great experience, but my time to fly is very limited and often interrupted. Is the intention to also include a completely mechanical ATC like FSX, only better? If so, it would be great for that ATC to include speed orders, holding patterns, and better management of the approach airspace that avoid the crazy final turns and go arounds in FSX today.Simon

I completely second that.

As much as Live ATC is probably great I for one have never felt the urge to use it after years of simming since I am more a bush flyer than a heavy flyer and everytime I looked, the available ATC controller in the places I flew were close to nil. So it's probably good to have everything in the sim to ease the Live ATC connectivity, an AI ATC probably corresponds to the needs of the 90% of users that do not read or post in these forums as you said Matthys. I really hope that the idea of having an AI ATC, a bit better than the one in FSX, is still part of the project

[pulsar21 2]

A great feature would be the ability to share one squawk code when flyng multicrew in VATSIM/IVAO so that both user can collect fly hours.

[Arista 64]

an AI ATC probably corresponds to the needs of the 90% of users that do not read or post in these forums as you said Matthys.

I second that. While online ATC is nice, and it's needs should be considered during development, my experience is that controllers (as well as other pilots) are few and far between in general. In the light of that, it's equally important to consider the needs of add-ons like Radar Contact or VoxATC. Areas to expand the built-in AI ATC (if any) into could include Flight Watch, unicom/multicom operations at non-towered airports, or generally non-FAA procedures, for example. Another nice touch would be weather advisory broadcasts by ATC or HIWAS, depending on how advanced your weather engine will be.

In a training environment, it would be handy to be able to have AI traffic, but no audible AI ATC controlling that traffic, while still being able to listen to ATIS and other broadcasts. Optionally, it might be fun to hear the virtual pilots on ATC frequencies while the virtual controllers are muted. Of course, AI ATC controlled through speech recognition would be great, too.

[nolanh 21]

it's equally important to consider the needs of add-ons like Radar Contact or VoxATC.

I agree.

Some people like add-on AI ATC as an option, plus it can be a stepping stone to using online ATC.

Creating a flexible interface (2-way) for use with online ATC might open up new capabilitites for add-on AI ATC and add-on online ATC utilities, and vice versa.

Looking at AI ATC needs and online ATC needs at the same time would benefit both options, I would think.

[darem 106]

Personally, I have no interest in Online ATC. Being dependent on others or others being dependent on me (what if I decide that i would rather go to bed than ending my flight) is not what I want from a simulation or game. It's ok if it can be added, but I would perfer to NOT have this as a built in option.

If you manage to keep the quality of FSX ATC with a better guidance at the end of a flight, that would be more than enough for me.

And in-built voice recognition for ATC would be the topping on my wishlist :-)

[Annasara 1]

Personally, I have no interest in Online ATC. Being dependent on others or others being dependent on me (what if I decide that i would rather go to bed than ending my flight) is not what I want from a simulation or game. It's ok if it can be added, but I would perfer to NOT have this as a built in option.

If you manage to keep the quality of FSX ATC with a better guidance at the end of a flight, that would be more than enough for me.

And in-built voice recognition for ATC would be the topping on my wishlist :-)

I completely agree with this.

[krezip 3]

It's fine if somebody not interrested in online ATC, but check out the other side: many people are interested in being an online ATC. Without a simulator supporing online flying, they will loose their hobby. Although there are ATC simulators, and some of the are very good indeed, the tase of controlling real people is uncoparable to any artifical solution. I understand that the controller side of the online world is a bit out of the scope for the business so far, as both VATSIM and IVAO is a free service, but please, think about them as well.

The pilot side is a bit different. However many virtual pilot says, that the offline flying with AI ATC is better than the real (I mean, online), but it is quite usual, that if Im qustioning them finally Ive got 2 kind of answers:

- one thinks the offline is better, because the low traffic and the unstaffed ATC positions in the online systems.

- an other thinks the offline is better, because he should lear too much to be able to fly according to the real procedures and use correct phraseology. many times the lack of english knowledge is also a problem.

But those guys, like me, I learned a lot and I dont care if I am not No82 in sequence for departure, I just love the realism of the online world, both in ATC and pilot side.

[bionicCrab 7]

There isn't really much you have to implement that's different from FSX... one thing however is that the FSX engine isn't that reliable with AI. if it runs out of memory other peoples aircraft tend to disappear, forcing the software to reload and obviously catch when it's deleted. So the only real thing is to make sure that some AI objects have some sort of "stickiness" priority

And if I could think of one other thing, is to make sure the SIM window maintains Anti Aliasing when you have a regular windows application on top. Don't know who's fault that is but the latest Nvidia drivers seem to prevent that in FSX. However a better solution might be just to allow applications to directly create child windows. But the vast majority of the client is playback/record functionality based. And I think what i've said might apply to a number of applications and not just Online ATC.

[krezip 3]

I was just thinking, that would it be possible, to merge the online and the offline? I mean, we can avoid the empty skies of the online world if we put AI traffic and AI ATC for the uncovered regions. Sure, it is just a raw idea, needs to be worked out, I just decided to share, maybe someone will have something in mind to impoove.

[CaptainTim 11]

As a pilot connecting to an online network:-

- IVAO or VATSIM, or another, the connection process should be the same but clearly labelled (wether that is by big text saying IVAO or VATSIM or by the GUI)

- Frequency changes should be done either by a pop up window - (allowed to be un-dockable to move to a 2nd monitor) OR via the radio Panel

- Important footnote here, ATC should be able to see which callsign is speaking to them as to stop people with hot mics stamping over everyone

- Flight Plan filing should be received by ATC without being online and be valid for up to 2 hours before departure and half an hour after specified departure time

- No duplicate callsigns (it may sounds silly to put it in but its worth having it twice than not at all)

- Private message/chat to other pilots, and control centres

- ATIS / METAR Look-up with either text or possibly voice annunciation

- Ability to see controlled areas up to 100 nautical miles from airspace boundary

- Landing runway at destination or departure runway at a glance - useful if flying a) into an un-familiar runway large airport where multiple runways are used - really useful when ATC isn't online.

- Other users will show up as default model library, or in the case of IVAO, as one of their excellent MTL models.

Just a few things I would look for.

Cheers

Tim

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I was just thinking, that would it be possible, to merge the online and the offline? I mean, we can avoid the empty skies of the online world if we put AI traffic and AI ATC for the uncovered regions. Sure, it is just a raw idea, needs to be worked out, I just decided to share, maybe someone will have something in mind to impoove.

That's one of the goals but it will be VERY hard to do. We'll see.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Closing this topic now. We will open it later after I had discussions with VATSIM and IVAO.

Thanks for the comments