Update on improved ATC?

[draconus]

6 hours ago, Gary said:

Non spamming AWACS

Why do you throw AWACS into the mix with ATC? Just because it's also comms?

btw: @FalcoGer is the thread owner and he can mark any post as solution.

[Gary]

3 hours ago, draconus said:

Why do you throw AWACS into the mix with ATC? Just because it's also comms?

btw: @FalcoGer is the thread owner and he can mark any post as solution.

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.

[FalcoGer]

  

On 10/27/2024 at 11:24 AM, Gary said:

vast majority of users are SP and for some of those

I don't get where you get these statistics from. Either way, I play mostly online. A decent ATC would be enjoyable for everybody, not just those who play one way over another. Even in "that" flight sim with a functioning ATC I sometimes just screw around for some "airquake" if I feel like that on that day (though that is rare). Taxiway takeoff, landing without clearance, cutting people off in the pattern, the works. And what does "their" ATC do? they have to deal with it, and they actually kind of do. If you cut them off in the pattern, they will adjust speed or abort if it can't be saved; if you incur on the runway, tower will tell them to go around, and they will. My point is that a better ATC doesn't mean you can't just not use it, ignore it, and play airquake if that is what you want.

The state of DCS ATC - and comms procedures in general - is atrociously clunky, unrealistic and unhelpful - both to humans and AI, both online and offline. Having a real person doing ATC is great, but you don't always have that luxury, and more often than not they don't know what they are doing, or they are doing something else (GCI instead of ATC). And even with a dedicated controller, they can quickly become overwhelmed, managing multiple airports, and all aspects of every one of them, with AI not listening to a word of theirs.

Meanwhile ED works on swapable pilot patches; something that people won't ever see except with free camera on the stand. They literally see it once, think "oh cool", and then it's inconsequential for them for the rest of their lives. And even if it were the coolest thing since wing flexing, it has no gameplay value.

They promised improvements for over a decade and we got nothing at all. It's still the same as when I first started back when every module had it's own executable and if you switched you had to restart.

I wanted an update on the progress. Want to know why nothing is delivered when it can be rolled out incrementally. Ground, tower, departure, approach, area, awacs are all distinct and can be implemented and released separately. we got exactly 0 of these items. Are you telling me it's so infinitely complex and complicated to do even one of those things in 10 years, when it has been proven that a bunch of volunteers with day jobs can do a very decent approximation of ATC in their free time - as a mod without the original source code?

On 10/27/2024 at 12:56 PM, =475FG= Dawger said:

That is what I imagine DCS would be, based upon the SC implementation 

Pointless use of full procedures meant for worst case scenarios 

Said mod also has a solution for that problem. You get to pick what you want. Fully vectored approach, overhead break landing, or the do-whatever-you-want approach, where they just shut up and let you land - while still making sure that nobody is coming onto the runway while you are on final. Also oh god - they made you fly an approach the proper way without shortcuts. the horror. Of course ED may not do it that way, but it still can be done.

On 10/27/2024 at 2:49 PM, =475FG= Dawger said:

In a lot of places in Europe, you get assigned a 15 minute departure window. Miss it and have loads of fun getting another. 

This is a combat flight simulator. We won't get departure windows, we get departure times, and if we are delayed we get pushed in behind the flight the went in front of us. Of course this particular issue will have to be worked around somehow if you are in a setting where respawning is a thing (like online). As for offline missions and campaigns, this is fairly straight forward. You get slotted in some time before your departure, have some time to prepare the aircraft, and then it's go time. Or again, you can just ignore everything and just go, same as before.

On 10/27/2024 at 8:16 PM, HILOK said:

"unable to clear for take-off" followed by take-off CLR issue

ATC should never say that, as someone stepping on the "unable" part would result in the pilot understanding "clear for take-off". instead they'd say "hold position" or "hold short".

On 10/28/2024 at 7:48 PM, SharpeXB said:

Comparisons are kinda pointless

I disagree. Competition pushes innovation. ED might disagree and say there is no competition - which I find ludicrous. Even a book is competition for DCS, competition on how people spend their money and free time. Another modern aircraft combat flight sim much more so. Either way, at the very least it shows what is possible and can provide inspiration on how to improve or find solutions to problems by looking at how other people solved those same problems - like people not wanting to fly "pointless full procedures" all the time.

DCS prides itself on it's realism, but what we have right now is neither realistic, nor helpful. In fact it is annoying and dangerous. Getting cleared to land on a runway with traffic on it, or getting yelled at "hold position" because some guy is taxing around on the other side of the airport, or struggling to ask permission to land for the 7th time on final before being responded to is bad UX and bad realism.

The way it is right now is basically no ATC. if you prefer that, don't tune your radio to that frequency and just land however you please, and you get exactly the same experience - exactly the same way you experience pilot patches if you don't get in real close with the free camera.

ATC should handle all aircract, player and AI, in a reasonable, realistic manner. Give us the english ICAO standard first, use that everywhere at first - yes even in a 1940s scenario in syria, because that is clearly better than the buggy mess we have now. Then add your weirdo ATCs and procedures in different languages if you care enough at that point.

Edited November 8, 2024 by FalcoGer

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

I disagree. Competition pushes innovation.

Well besides being against the rules constant comparisons to other games preclude DCS coming up with something better, merely imitating something else isn’t necessarily the best solution. 

2 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

Another modern aircraft combat flight sim much more so.

Games made by unpaid modders are certainly not a fair comparison. 

2 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

I don't get where you get these statistics from.

ED has said this themselves many times. 90% of the players have never been online. That’s not hard to believe. I really hope the few players you ever see on the servers aren’t the majority that own the game. 

 

 

[cfrag]

9 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

I don't get where you get these statistics from.

I believe that in an interview with ED (which I can't seem to find, so a suspect source) a spokesperson mentioned that MP makes up a sliver of some 10%-12% of the installed base. Let's turn this around: if DCS was primarily an MP game, it would look very, very different today, with MP-supporting features taking precedence over SP eye candy. If MP really was important, I think that there'd be much better support for MP, because business requires it (if you run a server or try scripting a server, you know what I mean). Currently it seems obvious to me that - due to ED's one-off sales model - selling (new) modules to SP is ED's business imperative; we get half-finished new stuff regularly, and infrastructure upgrades only when absolutely necessary.

9 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

I wanted an update on the progress. Want to know why nothing is delivered when it can be rolled out incrementally.

There is no way to directly monetize ATC (at least when contrasted to publishing a new module or map), so it won't receive much funding - if at all. Talking about it is cheap, so we'll likely receive the occasional "status update". But the one-off sales model seems to serve ED well, and until that changes there's little impetus to upgrade the infrastructure. I sincerely doubt that we'll see passable ATC unless ED's business model changes. ED may talk about it, sure. Just like they talk about a "Dynamic Campaign" or a damage model for the Yak (published as EA in 2018, still EA today, still a bad joke). Yeah, pull the other one. 

9 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

Ground, tower, departure, approach, area, awacs are all distinct and can be implemented and released separately. we got exactly 0 of these items.

What really adds insult to injury is that all of these come as well-defined, well documented FSM, and the only challenge in putting them into a game are some possible edge-case state transitions that can easily be overcome by state resets. It's not a difficult proposal at all, merely something that requires work. Work, however, that can't well be monetized. Nobody plays DCS for the great ATC experience (and I wager the same holds true for the other FS). Everyone plays DCS for their modules (be it Hornet, Tomcat, Hog or any of the other great stuff). So ATC gets the shaft. Sad, but something I'm trying to live with. Currently, I'd even advocate that ED remove "ATC" altogether, it's in such an abysmal state that it would be better not to put a lantern on it.

So, realistically, the sad truth is that we won't see ATC in DCS anytime soon. I play DCS for the fun it gives me now, not for the hopes I have what it may bring me in the future. And since this is a wish list item, yeah, ATC is very high on it for me. And my goddaughter is wishing for pony this xmas...

 

Edited November 8, 2024 by cfrag

[HILOK]

6 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

My point is that a better ATC doesn't mean you can't just not use it, ignore it, and play airquake if that is what you want.

totally agree, and i'd like to add that "ATC issues", aka dinner's ready, would only come into play, when there actually is other traffic around. a SP "airquake" scenario typically takes place in an almost empty dcs world. as there is no dynamic traffic, there's always an idle airport around. and for the remote case that after a hard day of professionally airquaking, you are running on fumes and the only runway that you can reach is the one the mission designer put traffic on, one could still use that old trick from THE viper sim: call for emergency landing, and the airport is yours.

now for MP scenarios, i would argue that decent air traffic control would actually be needed and really useful (tools are already available to prevent players from messing around, and more tools could be created to prevent abusing ATC, i.e. call emergency for no reason)

[cfrag]

8 minutes ago, HILOK said:

more tools could be created to prevent abusing ATC

While this is true, methinks that enforcing ATC would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. ATC should remain wholly optional, and if people abuse it in any way on an MP server, there's always the option to talk to them. I'm not a friend of automatic enforcement. Yes, griefers exist, and they should die a slow, painful death. Everyone else solves problems through talking. So optional, cooperative ATC would be my preference.

[Gary]

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

[HILOK]

4 hours ago, cfrag said:

While this is true, methinks that enforcing ATC would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. ATC should remain wholly optional, and if people abuse it in any way on an MP server, there's always the option to talk to them. I'm not a friend of automatic enforcement. Yes, griefers exist, and they should die a slow, painful death. Everyone else solves problems through talking. So optional, cooperative ATC would be my preference.

and i totally agree with you. this option was a suggestion for the hardcore MP fraction, in case they would dislike an emergency landing feature... 

[SharpeXB]

8 hours ago, cfrag said:

I believe that in an interview with ED (which I can't seem to find, so a suspect source)

It’s the first question answered here. This isn’t hard to believe, just look at the paltry numbers online. 

 

[ShroomSister]

ED should just completely remove the current "ATC". I've been told to "hold position" every 5 seconds, even when I've taken off 20 minutes ago and am miles away from the airfield. The current "ATC" is a blight on the sim that makes the whole experience uglier. Removing it altogether would reduce file size of DCS, and very slightly improve performance in-game.

I'm not trying to hate--I love this game to death. I just want to see it reach its maximum potential; and I think removing the current ATC altogether would improve the experience.

[ruxtmp]

ATC for the supercarrier which is a paid module is for the most part useless too. It is unrealistic and incomplete. It is just radio responses based off basic triggers and radio inputs. AI do not use it or respond well if at all. In SP and MP missions AI flown planes smash into each other or into players in the pattern or on the deck. If ED cannot get the paid for module working well in a few years since release, I think the core ATC is not going to be anything more than what it is now.

[ebabil]

ATC and the dynamic campaign are the never-ending story for DCS

[Red_Dragon]

In 2024 I would say that I expect ATC not only to be realistic, but also to recognize speech.. But maybe we won't see an improvement even of what we have now.

[MAXsenna]

ED should just completely remove the current "ATC". I've been told to "hold position" every 5 seconds, even when I've taken off 20 minutes ago and am miles away from the airfield. The current "ATC" is a blight on the sim that makes the whole experience uglier. Removing it altogether would reduce file size of DCS, and very slightly improve performance in-game.
I'm not trying to hate--I love this game to death. I just want to see it reach its maximum potential; and I think removing the current ATC altogether would improve the experience.

Improve performance? That's a new one.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[draconus]

On 11/9/2024 at 8:17 PM, ShroomSister said:

ED should just completely remove the current "ATC".

You can disable the built-in ATC for any mission in ME.

[unclesneep]

This thread is almost 3 years old...

[BIGNEWY]

23 minutes ago, unclesneep said:

This thread is almost 3 years old...

We have higher priority tasks ahead of the ATC, which it self is a huge task. You will need to continue to be patient. 

thank you 

[Lange_666]

Oh well, we've been waiting for more than 10 years now after the first "promise" that ATC would receive a "major" update.
That patience now is slowly coming to an end. 

[Gary]

On 11/13/2024 at 1:24 PM, BIGNEWY said:

We have higher priority tasks ahead of the ATC, which it self is a huge task. You will need to continue to be patient. 

thank you 

You mean paid content?

[BIGNEWY]

Just now, Gary said:

You mean paid content?

No

[SharpeXB]

I feel like any improvement to ATC would only really be appreciated in the context of a dynamic campaign so getting this before that seems premature. I can’t fathom MP gamers actually using authentic ATC procedures and the DLC campaigns already have this. It’s only something I imagine being used in the core SP game modes, again like a dynamic campaign if there was one. 

[Gunfreak]

42 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I feel like any improvement to ATC would only really be appreciated in the context of a dynamic campaign so getting this before that seems premature. I can’t fathom MP gamers actually using authentic ATC procedures and the DLC campaigns already have this. It’s only something I imagine being used in the core SP game modes, again like a dynamic campaign if there was one. 

Huge amount of work for the DLC campaign makers. And as someone who mostly does one of mission that i made myself. It would help immensely. Same way as having an airbase populated aircraft, static and moving, having infantry and vehicles moving here and there. 

Same as having animated deck crew on the carrier. It's all part in immersion and realism.

As it is now.  You can't even contact what little ATC there is on multiplayer servers.

[SharpeXB]

39 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Huge amount of work for the DLC campaign makers.

I think high quality voiceovers are a given for DLC campaigns regardless of what DCS core can do. 

40 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

As it is now.  You can't even contact what little ATC there is on multiplayer servers.

Yeah this is a bug at the moment. But if it was working I think hardly anyone would use it or pay attention to it regardless. 

[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