Update on improved ATC?

[FalcoGer]

We've been promised better ATC for years now. But there has been nothing to show for it. The best we got is a semi decent carrier approach control for the US Navy. I understand that this is complex with different terminology in different countries and in different times. But that's no excuse for apparently 0 progress over a decade and a half.

Incremental updates are a thing. Implement one system, apply it to everything and then add the nuances later. Add the current world standard for terminology and procedures first, then add the special cases (Russia and WW2) later.

I would like to know where the progress is regarding to this. It's always "It's WIP", but I really feel like we're being lied to and nothing at all is being done on this end. I remember being yelled at "Hold position" in a perpetual loop for no apparent reason when I first started with FC3 when each module required a game restart, and the same thing still happens today. What has actually changed? What is being done right this moment? What milestones have been reached this year? Or last year?

I don't see the progress and anytime someone asks it's "It's complicated" and "It's WIP". It might be complicated but it's not like it should take years to put in some points for arrival on the maps and have some logic for spacing and giving people vectors and speeds and altitudes. Again this can be done incrementally. Do runway management by the tower first. Then ground ops. Then departure, which really doesn't need to be anything special because you have you either have your mission or fly QRF, then arrivals. Then perhaps expand to AWACS actually controlling things instead of spamming you with pointless contact reports that have no bearing on what you are doing.

There is no point developing one monolithic solution and then dumping it in all at once, possibly in 15 different languages for 5 different time periods. Do one thing that's the most common and standardized (modern English ATC), then apply that to everything (including Russian airports in WW2), because that's still a big step up from what we have now, then add the special cases later.

[Northstar98]

On 4/25/2022 at 3:08 AM, FalcoGer said:

We've been promised better ATC for years now. But there has been nothing to show for it. The best we got is a semi decent carrier approach control for the US Navy.

Well, even then it's mostly just a callouts system.

• The AI doesn't interact with them at all.
• The different services aren't on different frequencies (making the "switch approach" callout meaningless). AFAIK marshal is on one frequency, and then approach/tower/LSO is on another.
• There's only 1 voice for each service (and the pilot voice is drastically different to the usual pilot voice, though to be honest the player pilot voices are a mess)
• The only callsign Marshal uses "Courage" is for the USS John C. Stennis, ironically the only member of the Nimitz-Roosevelt-subclass not featured in the SC module (if you want to see what the other callsigns are, and what TACAN callsigns they use see this).
• There's no squak callouts (for what I guess is IFF mode 3), which can be heard in real comms.

 

But as for ATC, I'm not even sure what the plan is, apart from an English system, a Russian/Soviet system and a WW2 English and German system. But personally, it needs to be offer as many functions and work just as well (including AI aircraft actually interacting and obeying their instructions), as in the other, F-16 orientated sim.

Right now I almost always set the ATC to be silent mode, because I find them to just be pretty woeful in just about everything they do, aside from turning lights on and providing vectors (despite not having an ASR).

Edited April 26, 2022 by Northstar98

[EagleA25]

Kinda agree on this topic… its been a decade!

Also, there should be an option where if a human controller is on the frequency, no need for the AI ATC or AWACS to make calls…

 

Just sayin…

[HILOK]

On 5/8/2022 at 5:25 PM, EagleA25 said:

Also, there should be an option where if a human controller is on the frequency, no need for the AI ATC or AWACS to make calls…

well, there is now  it's called standalone radar control (src)

 https://github.com/Wizxrd/SRC

[antiload]

I love DCS and appreciate all the passion and dedication from the ED team. However, for a game trying to be realistic (look at the tedious maverick missile procedure for the F16), it's rather embarrassing to have such a lame "ATC procedure". It goes from giving request to take-off to request denied, to giving permission. It's so annoying. This for me should be a priority to implement a functioning ATC on airfields. 

 

[=475FG= Dawger]

There is zero need for ”ATC”

In fact, what is envisioned in this thread would make DCS less realistic. 

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

There is zero need for ”ATC”

In fact, what is envisioned in this thread would make DCS less realistic. 

Is it opposite day?

[=475FG= Dawger]

The entire purpose of ATC is traffic separation. 
 

DCS is, at best, a sleepy backwater when it comes to air traffic. 
 

CTAF is entirely sufficient. 
 

 

[SharpeXB]

Indeed it’s funny to imagine realistic ATC in a game where players just routinely blast off from the ramp or taxiway.
Realistic ATC and voiceovers seem like the realm of DLC campaigns.

Edited October 25, 2024 by SharpeXB

[Hiob]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

Indeed it’s funny to imagine realistic ATC in a game where players just routinely blast off from the ramp or taxiway.

The majority of players plays single player offline. I don't know how many use DCS as arcade shooter, but I'm sure the majority would appreciate more atmospheric scernery - including but not limited to a good ATC.

[SharpeXB]

6 minutes ago, Hiob said:

The majority of players plays single player offline. I don't know how many use DCS as arcade shooter, but I'm sure the majority would appreciate more atmospheric scernery - including but not limited to a good ATC.

Oh sure and this sounds like a great feature for the Dynamic Campaign too. Maybe there could be a script in MP where your plane explodes if you take off without clearance

[Hiob]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Oh sure and this sounds like a great feature for the Dynamic Campaign too. Maybe there could be a script in MP where your plane explodes if you take off without clearance

At least ATC gives you a phone number to call after landing......

[antiload]

I take your points. Obviously it would be essential if ED produce a SP campaign. As for SP missions i guess an option to remove the ATC or a version where it simply informs you what runway to take off from would be good. 

[draconus]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Maybe there could be a script in MP where your plane explodes if you take off without clearance

Unrealistic.

[SharpeXB]

5 minutes ago, draconus said:

Unrealistic.

Well so is blasting off from a ramp or taxiway. Servers have scripts like this to discourage using banned weapons so why not this behavior? It’s honestly the most noobish distracting thing people do in fight sims Insto-destruct would be less unrealistic than putting logs and barriers on the taxiways.

[draconus]

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Well so is blasting off from a ramp or taxiway.

It's entirely possible to take off from taxiway if it's long and even enough.

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, draconus said:

It's entirely possible to take off from taxiway if it's long and even enough.

Like Tom Cruise if the base is under attack, sure. Doing this routinely when the runway is right next to you is just the height of noobish behavior. If I was a server owner this would earn a ban

Edited October 25, 2024 by SharpeXB

[draconus]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Doing this routinely when the runway is right next to you is just the height of noobish behavior.

Yes it is. I suggest not to play with such people or this server.

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, draconus said:

Yes it is. I suggest not to play with such people or this server.

I see this happen everywhere unfortunately. In many cases I don’t notice it’s actually listed on the rules so I won’t complain.

Edited October 25, 2024 by SharpeXB

[Northstar98]

On 10/25/2024 at 1:03 PM, =475FG= Dawger said:

The entire purpose of ATC is traffic separation. 
 

DCS is, at best, a sleepy backwater when it comes to air traffic. 
 

CTAF is entirely sufficient.

Ever considered that the lack of decent ATC is at least partially the reason why that is?

And if so, do you not see how circular that is?

ATC isn't worth using and doesn't work properly -> people avoid making bigger missions with more traffic -> little traffic for ATC to manage -> people think ATC isn't worth it -> ATC stays useless -> people avoid making bigger missions with more traffic -> ...

Because it certainly is for me. I'd definitely be more interested in making bigger single player missions if the ATC system was worth using.

Instead of what it is currently, where creating chaos takes very little effort and airbases feel dead and unimmersive. It doesn't take long in the other sim to see how worthwhile a good ATC system is, even in single player missions.

A decent ATC system and an AI that interacts and obeys its instructions (like in the other sim) is definitely useful, even with a small amount of aircraft in a single player mission.

Edited November 14, 2024 by Northstar98
removing redundancy, fixed links, typing sentences like a normal person, spelling chaos properly

[VirusAM]

The entire purpose of ATC is traffic separation. 
 
DCS is, at best, a sleepy backwater when it comes to air traffic. 
 
CTAF is entirely sufficient. 
 
 

What is ctaf?

Inviato dal mio Pixel 8 Pro utilizzando Tapatalk

[Maverick87Shaka]

2 minutes ago, VirusAM said:

What is ctaf?

Inviato dal mio Pixel 8 Pro utilizzando Tapatalk
 

I do believe he is referring to the call used also in general aviation when you're using airfield with no ATC available, so you make just "advisory call"

[=475FG= Dawger]

2 hours ago, VirusAM said:

What is ctaf?

Inviato dal mio Pixel 8 Pro utilizzando Tapatalk
 

Common Traffic Advisory Frequency

It is the frequency that you announce your intentions when there is no control tower operational.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_traffic_advisory_frequency

[=DROOPY=]

21 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Common Traffic Advisory Frequency

It is the frequency that you announce your intentions when there is no control tower operational.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_traffic_advisory_frequency

I can already hear - "Dude in the Hornet is landing on the runway at whatever airport I'm at...check it."

 

[sirrah]

I also hope for ATC (or broader: radio comms) improvements.

It's all the way on top of my wishlist for DCS (together with the DC). In fact, in my opinion the upcoming DC can't do without a radio comms overhaul. As without proper communication and interaction with other flights, awacs, jtac, missions too easily become airquake.

Proper radio comms and procedures/patterns that go with it, would make DCS so much more "alive" imho. (We already have a little teaser with the Supercarrier comms that shows its potential). 

I realize it's a huge task and I can imagine that those who play DCS online with friends or in a virtual squadron, would say it's a waste of money/effort, but for single player it would definitely be worth it. And from what I read on this forum, I think the single player base is still very large.

Creating even remotely "realistic" ATC with the mission editor currently, checking if the player tuned to the correct freq, having to add a radio F10 menu command (or a [press spacebar to continu] command, which can't be used in MP), is a tremendous amount of work and pita. Not even talking about having to add voice overs.

 

Again, I understand it's a huge endeavor, but if we at least had DCS' radio comms on par with that other 20yo Viper flightsim, I would be a very happy man. I too really hope for some DCS ATC improvement news soon.

 

Just my 2 cents of course