Gary

If I am correct - It is my understanding that many of the current DCS modules (A10 and Iraq map as just two examples) started life as TBS modules and we get a sort of trimmed down version without some details the military want to remain confidential. Shame the TBS website was removed as this was my go to source of "possible" future modules and terrains in the past. Not that it was a direct 1 to 1 port over from TBS to DCS of course. Regards, Gary

A little perspective might help when people consider how they feel about a dev or module. If half finished manuals or implementation is not for you then steer clear of EA alltogether - problem solved. Wait for the finished article and then buy it, even better wait for one of the many sales and get it then. Broadly speaking I would wager you could pick up most modules (albeit after a wait) for around £50 UK pounds or so. That's about the same price of a round of golf or a couple of evenings down the pub or another activity that's a one time event. Anyone would think we were shelling out several grand for a rolls royce that got delivered with dents in the bodywork. Not poking anyone here - just saying its a hobby that we invest in of course but as has been said - its not like the market is awash with other options is it. Regards, 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

Whilst I have all the RB modules and Map, I have no strong feeling either way as to who is at fault, why, or indeed individuals conduct throughout the drama nor how it all ends. I can see very good reason why IP protection is paramount to ED but also how some individuals, whom might be very reliant upon income for their hard work to pay their bills and feed their families, might be so frustrated that they lash out publicly. This saga will end however it ends and whatever feelings I might have at that time will just be a passing moment with no real impact upon my spending habits or future DCS journey. However, ED's conduct more generally does interest me, particulary in relation to trust. Here's a good example. I too purchased the Hawk and enjoyed it for what it was. The partnership with ED went belly up (irrelevant as to why for me) and that was that. Sad but hey ho. To their great credit ED recognised the "possible" trust and confidence implications and addressed this as best they possibly could by publicly announcing the "contractual and business changes" they would subsequently put in place to secure source code to guard against a repeat. Whether this ED contractual change is relevant to the current RB issues or not does not matter. ED stating "Contracts and business details are not for sharing in public" however very relevant to me. It was yourselves who brought contractual arrangements into the public forum and arena in order to calm your customers purchasing fears (as I say a good move at the time) - its a bit rich to now fall back on the "its private" attitude. I've seen it stated a number of times that the two disputes (Hawk and RB) are very differant but I disagree. Both "could" result in me losing access and use of modules I've paid for. Again, if that does happen hey - ho. No big drama or issue for me personally. The investment at the time have all been worth it and I would argue I've already had my money's worth (maybe except the F15) and frankly I've paid more for some really disappointing family meals in fancy resturants in my long life. I'm disappointed the "Polychop" thread got shut down too. The point of my post is really about "how" ED handles these issues - not necessarily what they say. They made a move several years ago to be a bit more open and tolerant and I for one want to see that attitude continue please. It does enable us users to be just a tad more informed than the old ways! Regards, 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

Where did you get the quote in bold please? - link? If this is true and from ED directly I would agree - this is really good news and an important update which possibly should be added to the opening post! 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?

Name calling? - really? If an adult conversation and opinions which differ from your own might offend you - I would suggest a forum is not the place for you. Of course - if no offense was taken by you then I'm not sure what motive you might have for even suggesting someone called somebody else a name?

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