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

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

Hi, Now we have a single thread setting out the facts, can I request one small but crucial clarification please? The OP starts with this statement. The first knowledge of the disagreement happened with an announcement on the RAZBAM DIscord here: Should the above statement not include the word "public" after the word "first" - otherwise it would appear that ED only raised the IP violation allegations with RB when they went public with their claims of not being paid. My faith in ED's conduct would be strengthened if it could just be confirmed ED had raised the IP issue with RB well before any disagreement went public please? If ED did indeed only raise the IP issue after RB went public about payment, then that makes a big differance to me personally. Kind 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!