Gary

To be clear - I was not knocking human ATC slots or use....but, Unless my mate doing this duty has some knowledge and understanding of ATC comms its likely to be a very non ATC type of conversation. I could just imaging: Me "Viper 2-1 at Alpha requesting Taxi" ATC response from "Dave" - "yeah, fill ya boots mate - nobody around apart from you and Steve at this base - I don't think anyones coming into land anytime soon" You get my point I'm sure. Also as mentioned above - even with a human ATC and a few mates on a server - the only comms you are going to experience will be between the human players and actually hearing AI comms interact with ATC and other agencies would be really helpful in a number of situations. Dawger, I get and accept your concerns above about strict enforement but as can be seen with full start up procedures and such - ED can maybe include options that limit the extent of your need to engage with ATC and others?

I'm sorry Dawger but you are again wrong! Whilst I'm sure a human acting as GCI, ATC and AWACS in a multiplayer environment is a blast, does it also include appropriate comms exchanges between the AI and ATC etc - no. Your replies and avitar suggest to me that you fly online, possibly in a squad of some form, and your personal views are largely based on these experiences - and that's absolutely fine - but it has been stated and confirmed many times that the vast majority of users are SP and for some of those, semi realistic ATC would be a very welcome addition for our flight simming experience. Regards, Gary

I definately agree - something similar would be a good start I think.

I've fixed that for you too.

I fully accept there are some who just want to get airborne and blow stuff up! As there is undoubtably a number of users who think "Top Gun" is a true representation of military flying procedures, maneuvers and combat. Each to their own and I thought my opening line was clear that DCS is many things to many people and everyone should do what suits them. I would also add that more recent DLC creators are getting very good at including better ATC procedures albeit via the F10 radio options. However, the subject of the discussion was development of the core ATC functionality and I voiced my views and made it clear these were mine and mine alone. I take exception to others stating their opinions almost like the are facts and because they don't care for it - it shouldnt be addressed - now that IS silly and selfish! Regards, Gary

I've fixed that for you.

Dawger, You do you of course and use DCS how you want to. For others who want to enjoy the flight sim aspect (as we precieve it) ATC is sorely needed and a very big part of "our" experience and enjoyment.

DCS is undoubtably many things to many people but with a definate bias towards aircraft systems and weapons delivery set across two eras, modern and WW2. Personally, I became invested in the software because at its heart it was a flight simulator. So of course I wanted (and got) realistic looking models, cockpits, systems, cockpit buttons and maps and I believe it is generally accepted that ED has produced and expanded upon these to the point it is the best looking product of its type on the market. A product I have spent significent money on happily (even parts I have little interest in such as WW2 in a way to support further improvements) What has started to grate my gears, and I fully accept this is mostly a personal thing, is the lack of development in the parts that excite me and ATC being my personal number 1 priority. My frustration largely fueled with the passing of time - as others have noted - we are talking more than a decade now without any improvement, expansion or development (please don't quote the SC comms addition which is severly lacking IMHO) There has been very scant details despite multiple statements to say its WIP. And yes, we get the often quoted line that "its difficult and complex" - of course it is and I think we all understand that but more so that a fully functional F18 or F16 or Apache helicopter? It strikes me the obvious issue here is revenue. If some form of realistic ATC were a paid module I have no doubt whatsoever it would be part of DCS today and would have been a purchasing option years ago, and again, I do understand the business needs to generate income. My ask is simple and I think entirely reasonable. Please ED give us some details, a very broad roadmap (with all the "subject to change" caveats of course) and some hope that this will come! or, just confirm its a very low priority and although it will come "someday" its not a priority and will only get addressed when developers have a slow period with little else to focus their time on. I do hope this post doesnt come across as a rant - that is not my intention and I'm sure the admins can review my account history and testify to my "very long" held passion for this particular topic but my view is this subject is now way, way overdue for development of some form. Kind Regards, Gary

My Tobii 5 has now stopped working - anyone else with this issue? Been running MT vedrsion for a while now and always been ok before today's update (providing you disable the launch screen - not sure if this is fixed now?) Noticed the HeadTracker.dll was only in the Bin folder so copied a copy across to the Bin-Mt folder but still no joy. Headtracker is picked up in the controls screen but can't get it to work - any ideas anyone please? Regards, Gary

Have you tried disabling (bypassing) the new launch screen? This worked for me until today's update anyway!

I'm using the gamehub software and Tobii has stopped working. Worked fine previously (only if you disable the launcher though) I don't want to use other software (i.e.Opentrack) so any ideas?

I made a fatal error in seeking a response to this thread. I foolishly included the "ATC" acronym in my query and I'm pretty confident the forum AI weeds these type of questions out so they never get seen! - the few that do get through usually trip the standard "we are working on it and will let you know more when we have something to say" - been that way for years (and that's no exaggeration) Anyway, I will keep my fingers crossed for something substantial soon! Regards, Gary

You may well be correct in that the answers to the performance set of questions might have already been known. However, unless I've missed something, there are a good many questions to which some answers would be very welcome still - and for me particulary anything ATC related.

Can I ask when the next set of answers will come please and what "topic" it will cover? Aside from a general interest my personal focus is anything ATC related (and has been for the last 10 years!) - info on which is extremely scarse. Regards, Gary

I'm flattered you think I personally have so much influence!! Anyone who is involved in DCS on a number of platforms will have read what is out there and formed their own adult opinion I'm sure - rather than be spooked by what "Gary" thought on the DCS forum.

For the avoidance of any doubt - I wasn't taking side or painting either party as the culprit. As has been said a number of times we simply don't know the details to even form an opinion. What I was doing and seems ligitamate to do so was considering best and worse case outcomes.

Can anyone please confirm my understanding below? If I recall correctly, when the Hawk development "broke" with another developer - I seem to recall ED saying they had changed some terms and conditions in relation to working with 3rd parties and that it was a requirement of said 3rd parties to effectively hand over the source code should the developer remove themselves from the DCS platform. Did I dream that or is the above basically correct? Obviously if it is true -and Razbam withdraw from the DCS platform maybe ED can continue with the Razbam modules development? Razbam are in a relatively weak position I would argue if the above is correct.

I'd love to see this too - please.

Thank you!

Hi, Is there a formal update from ED on this request please? Gary

I'm sorry draconus - in what capacity do you work for ED that enables you to mark your comment as the solution? Is this ED's formal answer to my question or just your opinion?

Hi, This topic closed at the end of August 2023 but I've not seen the questions answer thread as yet. Do you know roughly when we might see this please? Kind Regards, Gary

Save game is big but I welcome a very rare mention of ATC improvements - although the article is not clear if we will recieve any changes this coming or not? Anyone able to clarify at ED please? (everything subject to change of course) Regards, Gary

The link between the sensation of speed and FOV is obviously linked. I find the whole FOV topic very interesting. I've been down the FOV rabbit hole several times before in the hope of trying to get a somewhat "realistic" cockpit perspective. It seems important to me to establish the base FOV. I've researched the calculators but as noted these refer to racing sims in the main. With my set up (Curved screen size and distance from my eyes in the main) I've concluded a FOV of around 90 degrees seems as accurate as I can calculate but definately interested in others pancake calulations and settings? (mainly because I've never established anything definative accepting everyones individual set up makes a differenace too of course) As also noted - in sim I often use the zoom in function but at I do obviously return to my base value once I've completed what I'm doing. Kind Regards, Gary

Chris, Thanks for the reply - I really appreciate you taking the time to do so. I enjoyed the Cerberus North implementation so I guess something similar to that hopefully. Kind regards, Gary