A few suggestions

[McChester 8]

Hello Mathijs et al,

I tried out the demo and I am pleasently surprised so far. Although it is still far from being a simulation per se because there are no sectors or letters of agreement included, it actually makes a lot of fun.

Before I buy the game however, I would like to ask whether or not you may or may not include any of those features in the future:

-) SEP-Tool: A minimum separation calculator that shows you the minimum distance between two tracks, the time until that distance is reached and a predicion vector.

-) A persistent "feeder-cursor": A cursor that shows only mileage between two tracks. Basically the same as the current "double-click" cursor, but sticking to two tracks and only with mileage.

-) A simple way to show a route: In our current (RL)-ATC System, a middle mouse click on a certain part of the label would show the planned route of an aircraft. This would reduce clutter by not having to display the STARs at all times of airports that you dont know too well.

-) Talking about clutter: Maybe include an option to display any procedure without the lines but only with the waypoints.

-) The always present display of the flightleg when an aircraft is inbound to a waypoint is disturbing at least and together with my point no. 3 would be unnecessary.

-) Manual re-ordering of flightstrips would be nice in order to plan a sequence

-) I'd like to save my setup for a certain airport so I dont have to setup the display and the altitudes etc.. new every time I start a new round.

More to come ;-)

In the meantime I'll get going with the demo again. I can provide screenshots from the requested features if you like.

greetings, Alex

(RL ATC)

[RobsonM 94]

1 - I will investigate it. Sound interesting but I need to know more details. Could you send me some images on private?

2 - Already mentioned during beta and still on my to do. Just looking for a nice and natural way of implementing it.

3 - Very good suggestion! Will add it to my list right away.

4 - Already included. Go to right sidebar - > setting -> Show lines

5 - True, I will add toggle for this...

6 - Already included. See Settings in the top menu: Load settings from file, save settings to file. If you mean procedures and so one just start the game and pause, set up the scope, save the state and next time just load it instead of starting new blank session. For the altitudes you can edit Airport file. Top menu, Help, SDK, Airport editor.

Very glad you like it, and hope you will also try the full version. Really recommend multiplayer as this is hell lot more fun!

Merry Christmas!

[McChester 8]

You got mail Robert

[RobsonM 94]

Saw it and thank you. This is definitely doable. Will investigate

[McChester 8]

I just bought the product and tested it with LOWW. Unfortunately all flight departing make a 360 turn due to a "fake" WWxxxx point at the threshold of the departure runway (for example WW1513 for KOVEL1A). Anyway to fix that? I could of course remove the waypoints from the file, but this seems to be a systematic error.

Alex

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hello Mathijs et al,

I tried out the demo and I am pleasently surprised so far. Although it is still far from being a simulation per se because there are no sectors or letters of agreement included, it actually makes a lot of fun.

Again that comment it is not a simulation, in your mind it is not even close. If this is not a simulation what is it? It clearly simulates ATC, even using exactly that same database as real aircraft do, but just as clearly you define a simulator as something else then I do. Seeing your standards is there any software you would call a simulation that does not cost millions?

There are sectors (or do you mean something else). I do not know what you mean by letters of agreement. The issue with some waypoints is being looked at but a major problem is that we are not allowed to change anything in the database.

[ttube 0]

Might the "clutter" referred to by the OP be reduced somewhat by an opacity slider. This might reduce the clutter of navaids, approaches, and other info without really removing the info. Just a thought.

Joe

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Might the "clutter" referred to by the OP be reduced somewhat by an opacity slider. This might reduce the clutter of navaids, approaches, and other info without really removing the info. Just a thought.

Joe

I like that suggestion. But it might (not sure) raise the hardware requirements.

[McChester 8]

Hello Mathijs,

what you are showing is basically the airspace structure which is basically made out of CTRs, CTAs, TMAs and ATZ. The sectors are the portion of the airspace a certain controller is responsible for. This information is almost never public - not because it is secret, but because it is in no way relevant to a pilot. Your new "baby", GATC, has literally no way of knowing all those things because they are not published by ANSPs around the world. For example, the Approach-sector in LOWW can be splitted multiple times into lower secors, upper sectors, feeder sectors etc.. depending on runway config and traffic. Let me say it again: With your new approach of delivering an ATC-game based on AIRAC-data alone, you have ABSOLUTELY no way of telling all those things. Furthermore, in your typical TMA you have a lot more to consider but the aircraft on your frequency:

-) Active resticted, danger or probited areas

-) weather

-) VFR-Traffic

-) noise abatement

-) standing agreements to other sectors

-) even overflights to other airport going your TMA.

just a name a few.

Don't see this as criticism on the program itself - I have quite some fun actually. But in a simulated environment, the flights would come at a certain level at a certain point with a certain speed. You would have to deliver aircraft to your adjacent sectors at a certain level. You would at least see where your area of responsibility ends. All those things are not implemented - and how could you? Nobody would be able to implement something like that on a global scale. We are talking about hundreds of standing agreements in my airspace alone. GATC is one of the more serious competitors out there, but by no means is it a simulation yet.

Dont hesitate to PM me if you would like more insight. (Coming to W14 by any chance? Then we could discuss that face to face )

greetings, Alex

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

-) Active resticted, danger or probited areas

-) weather

-) VFR-Traffic

-) noise abatement

-) standing agreements to other sectors

-) even overflights to other airport going your TMA.

I believe the weather is covered well enough! Real time weather, gusting wind, visibility etc.

And yes, the other items are important for ATC, but the procedures we provide are designed by ATC staff to handle all this. If you guide the aircraft over the published procedures 75% of what you mention is covered. If the user has the charts for the airport he could handle these issues fully realistic. Of course, if we would do a ATC simulation of one airport we could add far more detail, but the product is called Global ATC and we cover close to 14.000 airports, have close to 100 aircraft types included etc.

I stand by my point of view this is a simulation. I feel that is fully justified. And the product will for sure develop. We now got the structure and are actively gathering feedback to include the things customers like to see added. You made some fine suggestions.

Perhaps I should apologize. Other events on the forum have put me on edge and I bitten a bit hard on the 'it's not a simulation' line. I understand your point of view and your comments are highly appreciated. In fact I think we need to invite you into the beta.

[McChester 8]

To be perfectly honest, I was surprised, that you felt so offended by my little side note, but I still think GATC is a good game! The simulation aspect is missing some points, but those can be handled. Apology accepted

I'd love to give you professional insight and tips to improve. Actually your approach is quite nice, and I already have some ideas to improve. I'd love to help you improving GATC if you give me the chance, just PM me

Furthermore I would like to come back to my previous support request a few posts above:

I just bought the product and tested it with LOWW. Unfortunately all flight departing make a 360 turn due to a "fake" WWxxxx point at the threshold of the departure runway (for example WW1513 for KOVEL1A). Anyway to fix that? I could of course remove the waypoints from the file, but this seems to be a systematic error.

Also, in the tutorial you tell the user, how beautiful the aircraft can be seen in a crab angle fighting the crossind. This is something you simply dont see in real life. In RL the vector is not based on aircraft orientation but on radar-updates. And by the radar updates, the aircraft is always on the centreline, regardless of crabangle, even if there is 50 kts crosswind. So the vector is also always along the centreline.

Alex

[Kabe 0]

I'm also a real-world controller (U.S.) and agree with McChester this is not a simulator. It's an interesting game though, and most importantly I don't think your target market of desktop aviation sim enthusiasts would really care either way anyway.

If you want to make it more of a simulator than a game, you kind of have to refocus the main purpose. Real ATC is not about "assisting pilots" as the manual says, or putting aircraft on SID's and STARS. It is about separating and sequencing traffic, and providing safety advisories (terrain alerts, etc) as the top priorities. Real ATC procedures revolve around following LOA's (letters of agreement -- these are procedures between ATC facilities that specify what to do to specific aircraft prior to handing them off). Also coordinating with adjacent positions when you need to do something different than the LOA's, or making what we call a "point out" in the US to get permission to go through another controller's airspace. Separating, sequencing and applying LOA's are the bulk of the radar controller's job.

To make it more like a simulator, I would deemphasize the "guiding aircraft around" aspect and focus on the separation and sequencing aspect. In real-world ATC, a controller "owns" a section of airspace and can do whatever they want to aircraft within "their" airspace -- they don't need to adhere to SID or STAR restrictions, in fact arrival controllers will take aircraft off STARs and give them straight vectors because it's easier. McChester may have some ideas but I would suggest for a worldwide simulator you don't need SID's and STARs at all, just have arrival fixes and departure fixes which is more how things are done in reality. Also avoiding overflights and calling traffic for VFR aircraft are large parts of the approach/departure controller's job.

Thanks for tackling the ATC field though, we can always use more software in this area and I hope you guys continue to develop it!