Gary

Sadly it was recently confirmed that the ATC improvements are not a priority for the Dynamic Campaign - so basically still years away. Regards, Gary

Thank you for the update. Appreciated. Gary

This has been teased for a while now and I'm really looking forward to trying it out. Do you have any release roadmap - even if subject to change of course? Regards, Gary

Please speak for yourself rather than everyone. Whilst the information sources for the F35A might be your number one priority, it most definately in NOT mine. You suggest no-one cares about the World Map or ATC which I can catogorically say is NOT true. The ATC improvements are my personal number one priority so please don't speak for me. Everyone will have their own personal priorities and whilst some will surely align with yours, not everyones will. Regards, Gary

This looks really promising!

This is right up my street too! - thank you for your efforts, for those of us who enjoy the added immersion ATC procedures bring this is very much appreciated. On the basis I suspect users might need to tinker with VA profiles, voice training and alike, plus the self training you rightly point out required to use this properly (and that others might want to add Voxfox compatability etc) I think the sooner you can a version released the sooner all the above can start. I'm frankly quite desperate to get my hands on this...lol Regards and thanks again, Gary

Any idea when the new "ATC" enabled version will be available please? Regards, Gary

Only modification I know of presently to improve things is the "mute" button! On a more serious note I've seen a couple of individuals out there who are working on generic improvements but nothing solid available just yet. We await in hope though! Regards, Gary

I think most forum users here will know of a certain sim that does do all this very well already. Personally, my enjoyment of DCS would be significently greater if it also had this level of ATC interaction. I know ED keep saying its a lot of work and not so easy to do (and I don't doubt this for a second) but as with most massive tasks in life, taking bite sized small steps towards an end goal would have surely resulted in something better than what we currently have already. Anyway, ED have confirmed ATC is not a priority. Given the fact that priority tasks take years to complete, I've resigned myself to the realisation that 3rd party and DLC content creators are the only likely source of ATC improvements I will see in the coming years. Regards, Gary

The DLC makers do a fantastic job as I have said previously. Really very good. But.... Taking advantage of these requires me to fly the airframe they choose and to undertake the mission they have built. I want to be able to fly any airframe of my choosing and the mission I want....even if that is just a flight from point A to point B practicing navigation, timing, or whatever. Having some form of semi realistic ATC whilst doing so is my wish. I also think it has been recognised that core ATC functionality is mainly for SP (the vast majority of players) and that MP has other options which probably appeal more. Regards, Gary

You mean paid content?

cfag, Whilst I largely agree with your post above regarding EA, I disagree with the line "there is a high likelihood that it won't improve much 6 months after initial release" The flagship modules (presently F18, F16 & Apache) do benefit from, I'd argue, significent continued improvements long after the initial 6 months - but I get and agree with the point you are trying to get across in the main. It would also seem logical to me that "some" infrastructure improvements, or additions, are definately worth ED investing in. Simply because these additions would likely result in an increase in player numbers and interest and therefore module sales too. (Dynamic Campaign being the obvious example)

I totally get the arguement (observation) regarding monetizing the time and effort required to improve the ATC and I had mentioned that I suspect this is a very likely cause for the lack of progress. As I said, if ATC was a paid module I've no doubt whatsoever we would already have it available. What gets my goat is being told its WIP (for over 10 years now) when clearly its not. Yeah maybe one of the team has done a little research, spent a couple of hours giving it some thought, maybe sketched out all the issues and whats needed on the back of a fag packet but to suggest this represents WIP is disingenuous at best. It would have been far better for me personally if ED had just rolled out Kate, Nick or Wags years ago to say - "look, ATC is not a priority for us and therefore not part of our development roadmap presently" And just to cover the comparison debate. Absolutely comparisons will be drawn. Its silly to think any software which essentially do the same thing (such as flight simulation) won't draw comparisons - about the only significent factor is age (it wouldnt be fair to compare the DCS Apache to Microsoft Gunship for example given the passing of time and tech progress) Yet despite all I now know, I still find myself looking forward to every Friday update in the hope of some ATC news!! - I literally must be mad. Regards, Gary

Didn't see this through before so doubt very much your request will happen. I'm sure the original intention was good but for whatever reason it got abandoned.

As you say, it is also comms and also broken. Assuming the AI code was working properly then the wingman and other existing comms would probably suffice as is. At least for me.

Pikey, The other sim can and does cater for player injections quiet well. If a player decides he is going to take off regardless of the AI being on final the programme will and does ask the AI to go around. I do get though that on MP players doing their own thing when they want would be hugely problematical - hence the suggestion that proper ATC use implimented something akin to doing a full start up - or not - so the sever admin choose. I also accept my request is very much largely for the benefit of SP ops and programme use. I've seen the Moose script but honestly - no matter how easy it might be for some to impliment and understand - I sadly fall into the cat of those that can't get my head around it. I'm also not entirely sure what it will give me from the list I added above for my personal enjoyment? Regards, Gary

Thank you. Appreciated. If it was not moderated by ED (and I believe you fully) then you might want to look into who did possibly.

Why has this been marked as solved (by me!) and yet not merged with the other thread? I obviously don't have the ability to merge threads on the forum. I'm confussed as to what has actually been done here?

Max, I am VERY familiar with the other sim and its ATC / Comms functions. I guess my "short term aim" is to get something vaugely similar (or frankly any form of working ATC / Comms) now because clearly the "proper" development is still years away!

Morning all, I will admit that I know absolutely nothing about servers, scripting or the DCS AI oddities. However, to repeat what I have said before, I do understand that generic ATC for all sides, all airfields, across all maps and eras is a big task. Whilst that is the desire of course I am actually advocating some improvements, at a more basic level in the meantime. Firstly can the existing system be fixed please. Tower and AWACS spamming players is a big deal breaker for most players I would guess. Secondly - local ground, tower, dep / app CAN be done and relatively easily - as mentioned above Ground Pounder has done an impressive job already - and this is a single guy producing excellent material on his own. So heres an idea. What do others think? I might advertise a little competition on the forum. For a clever content creator to come up with a basic mission template in Miz format (if such a competition is allowed of course) to design a basic sandbox mission with ATC elements (like those already available in DLC) which includes. Ground Ops Tower Ops Dep / App ATIS RAT (to populate the air space and field locally - accept this might be hard to sequence?) Non spamming AWACS The abilty to change start airbase (with easy and appropriate edits to the miz) The ability to change airframes easily To do whatever mission the player wishes once cleared by departure control (say 20 miles out of the airbase) For the App control to kick in once less than 20 miles from home and triggered Anything else ATC related the clever content creator can add or think of Now if such a competion was allowed I'd be very keen to sponsor such with the award of a free module to whichever miz I thought best suited my particular needs Thoughts? Gary

I thought as much. Not a factor and another core feature which is broken! Despite being lead to believe this was something being developed as long as 10 years ago (possibly longer but certainly from around the time of the Nevada map release) this was clearly not true. Really, really disappointed.

As I have said - each to their own of course. Everyone is free to use DCS the way it suits and pleases them. But fundementally if your answer to the simple question "do you consider DCS to be a flight simulation at all on any level" is yes - then the current ATC is unquestionably very much lacking and in need of attention and has been for a very, very long time now.

Admin: Maybe merge these threads when you answer please?

Just a comment regarding DLC content creators progress regarding ATC. I have previously acknowledged some of these are really good - but heres the thing. Mostly they restrict me to drive the aircraft they have crafted the mission for. If it was designed for the F18 or F16 simply swapping out those planes for my preference in the ME breaks everything - I assume because the "triggers" are looking for cockpit button states that completely differ in each airframe. I end up having to do what the mission designer wants - not what I want to do! - are their missions good? - absolutely - but are they the same things and missions I want to do? - rarely. Now consider if the below was a thing in DCS: ATC that actually works as intended? (none of this cleared for take off - not cleared for take off - oh go on then, cleared for take off! ATC that was seperated to specific freq for each controller (ground, tower, app/dep etc) AWACS that didn't spam you every 3 seconds with anything at all - let alone details of some banits 200 miles away New voices to replace the existing (with some minimal effects) The ability to hear these agencies interacting with other flights on the same freq locally Would not the above alone improve the experience? You are quiet hard pushed nowdays to see a video on YT (even ED's own) that don't include some type of "canned chatter" - probably because comms is a very big part of the flying experience - be that civy or military. Regards Gary

SharpeXB, You reference a number of things which have been mentioned previously and there seems to be a general assumption that extreme realism is being requested - which is not the case. Firstly the SC comms is nothing more than a quick, poor (in my view) addition that was rushed for the SC specifically. It is not an improvement at all generally in relation to ATC and consists predominately of a list of scripted messages assuming the pilot does as expected. Do anything else and its redundant immediately. You choose the word ambiance, my choice would be "immersion" - based on your interpritation why bother with clouds, rain, explosive effects, airport scenery and vehicles ets etc. Yes, the most we could ask for is ATC that deconflicts, provides safe, taxi, take off, vectors and other flight comms - which in itself could add significently to a players SA and sense of being part of the whole task involving others (human or AI) - all of which another F16 sim provides for already and which is some 20 years old now. (albeit code which probably looks very differant today to that when it was foirst released of course) I am not asking for super realistic comms to be added. I'm not sure I want to be doing DME arch approaches and such either (but I'd wager there are users who would absolutely love this to be included too!) - I just want something semi realistic, believable and something which would add to my personal enjoyment of the software. Regards, Gary