Update on improved ATC?

[cfrag]

20 hours ago, =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. 

Huh. I believe that you are mixing purpose and game goals here. There are multiple purposes for ATC in the real world. One of them is managing air traffic risk - for those in the air, and those on the ground who would - quite literally - be impacted if something goes awry above. For many RW pilots, ATC chatter - which they observe passively by listening to the radio -- is their mind's eye to get a local picture of who is around. During airfield procedures, ATC is vital, and many pilots feel 'naked' when they approach an uncontrolled field because they feel that trusting CTAF to be accurate is akin to running across the street blindly trusting the verbal instructions of your friend. It works, but can be much better.

Now, in a game, especially sleepy backwater DCS ATC isn't that important - except that for many pilots not having ATC is the issue -- instead of being in a backwater region. And TBH, if you create your mission with some flights around your base, that ATC in DCS will lie to you, Tower will actively try to kill you (clearing you to land with traffic on the runway), and Ground/Tarmac is non-existent. Some people don't mind, and it's entirely inconsequential if your (absolutely legitimate) goal is to 'merely' blow stuff up. But some people enjoy procedures, and these procedures extend to airfield and RT. 

What really, really annoys me that airfield procedures are exactly that: procedures with defined states. Every state is fully defined. Putting this into code isn't that difficult. How do we know that? Look at other flight sim games that can do that. DCS's current ATC/TWR/GND is abysmal, even for a late 1990's game. Granted, having non-player aircraft observe ATC is something else entirely, so let's momentarily focus purely on procedures. I think that we can agree that

• ATC / RT procedures is an essential aviation aspect in reality.
• It can be an important aspect to a part of the flight sim gaming community
• DCS's implementation is currently (2024) severely lacking and 99.99% unrealistic

Let's hope that this will be taken care of soon, even if ED takes a simplified approach of only implementing the international civil aircraft operations procedures first, and work from there. My feeling is that it can only improve. Will it make the game better for those who primarily fly to blow stuff up? Probably not. But I think it will make DCS an overall better game for dorks like me, who kind of enjoy some procedures, and love the fact that I can ignore others (that's another important aspect: having current DCS allow players to ignore procedures is a great thing!).

-ch

[=475FG= Dawger]

57 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Huh. I believe that you are mixing purpose and game goals here. There are multiple purposes for ATC in the real world. One of them is managing air traffic risk - for those in the air, and those on the ground who would - quite literally - be impacted if something goes awry above. For many RW pilots, ATC chatter - which they observe passively by listening to the radio -- is their mind's eye to get a local picture of who is around. During airfield procedures, ATC is vital, and many pilots feel 'naked' when they approach an uncontrolled field because they feel that trusting CTAF to be accurate is akin to running across the street blindly trusting the verbal instructions of your friend. It works, but can be much better.

Now, in a game, especially sleepy backwater DCS ATC isn't that important - except that for many pilots not having ATC is the issue -- instead of being in a backwater region. And TBH, if you create your mission with some flights around your base, that ATC in DCS will lie to you, Tower will actively try to kill you (clearing you to land with traffic on the runway), and Ground/Tarmac is non-existent. Some people don't mind, and it's entirely inconsequential if your (absolutely legitimate) goal is to 'merely' blow stuff up. But some people enjoy procedures, and these procedures extend to airfield and RT. 

What really, really annoys me that airfield procedures are exactly that: procedures with defined states. Every state is fully defined. Putting this into code isn't that difficult. How do we know that? Look at other flight sim games that can do that. DCS's current ATC/TWR/GND is abysmal, even for a late 1990's game. Granted, having non-player aircraft observe ATC is something else entirely, so let's momentarily focus purely on procedures. I think that we can agree that

• ATC / RT procedures is an essential aviation aspect in reality.
• It can be an important aspect to a part of the flight sim gaming community
• DCS's implementation is currently (2024) severely lacking and 99.99% unrealistic

Let's hope that this will be taken care of soon, even if ED takes a simplified approach of only implementing the international civil aircraft operations procedures first, and work from there. My feeling is that it can only improve. Will it make the game better for those who primarily fly to blow stuff up? Probably not. But I think it will make DCS an overall better game for dorks like me, who kind of enjoy some procedures, and love the fact that I can ignore others (that's another important aspect: having current DCS allow players to ignore procedures is a great thing!).

-ch

Having flown around the world for thirty years, I am quite familiar with ATC in its various forms. 
 

The first duty of the pilot(s) is see and avoid.

What someone says on the radio does not relieve the PIC of that responsibility. 
 

In VFR operations in the US, you aren’t under positive control, in general, except for a short time in the pattern and on the ground. 
 

Some places force everyone into positive control by forcing IFR, even when the weather is CFB. 

That seems to be the average DCS player’s idea of ATC as is evidenced by your post above. Regimentation with ATC acting as PIC and the pilot merely a control actuator. 
 

Not feeling comfortable unless a controller is issuing instructions is a sure sign of someone not qualified to act as Pilot in Command. Had any pilot working for me or in a training event I was conducting exercises expressed such a sentiment, they would not retain PIC privileges. 
 

Its a silly idea. The PIC is the ultimate authority on the operation of the aircraft. 
 

As to airfield procedures having defined states, this is also incorrect. What you see published is the example ideal but deviation is common. In fact, one of the main roles of a tower controller is to manage deviation to promote greater operational tempo. So, ATC will often mean greater deviation from the supposed “defined state”

Again, CTAF is enough. We don’t need some sort of series of computer hoops to jump through in order to operate at an airfield 

If real ATC is your thing, find a human who wants to play ATC. 

[LeopardLenin]

Apologies if i missed a different post where somone already mentioned this.

Whats up with the ATC? are ED going to make a new one or just leave it in its broken state? Are ED currently working on the ATC or other core features, because in my opinion the ATC should be very high on the list of things that need working/updating.

[cfrag]

2 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Its a silly idea.

That flat-out assertion in a wish forum tells me everything I need to know. Thank you for sharing your opinion. 

Edited October 26, 2024 by cfrag

[Gary]

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

[=475FG= Dawger]

1 minute ago, cfrag said:

That flat-out assertion tells me everything I need to know. Thank you for sharing your opinion. 

In reference to a real world pilot expressing the idea that he needs a controller holding his hand at all times, it is silly. 

[Gary]

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.

Edited October 26, 2024 by Gary

[=475FG= Dawger]

2 minutes ago, Gary said:

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.

 

Development time is limited.
 

ATC is a waste of that time. 
 

There are other options for immersing yourself in a “realistic” ATC environment. 
 

Digital Combat Simulator does not need to nor should it try to become a competitor in that market. 

[Gary]

2 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Development time is limited.
 

I THINK - ATC is a waste of that time. 
 

There are other options for immersing yourself in a “realistic” ATC environment. 
 

Digital Combat Simulator does not need to nor should it try to become a competitor in that market. IN MY OPINION

I've fixed that for you.

[=475FG= Dawger]

38 minutes ago, Gary said:

I've fixed that for you.

Thanks for the demonstration. Only a pedant would feel the need to include “I think” in a forum that is exclusively opinions. And only a pedant would think regimented ATC is an appropriate use of development time. 

[cfrag]

41 minutes ago, Gary said:

I've fixed that for you.

Astute  -- believing their opinion to be an universal fact aside, their opinion is also strangely reminiscent of a "manly man's", gung-ho approach to flying, exactly the type of character trait that most people learn to avoid. It's akin to people asserting that "traffic lights are a waste of time; drivers have the ultimate responsibility". While the latter part is true, the premise is not connected. And asserting that "people who like traffic lights are wussies and should not drive" would strike me as a bit childish. Personally, I like traffic lights as IMHO they make the roads safer, even though I'm fully responsible and accountable for my actions in a car.

I believe that smart people look left and right before they traverse an intersection -- even if they have a green light. And when I approach an intersection that has no traffic lights that makes me more careful. Mistaking my being careful (feeling "naked"/unprotected) with being scared is... telling? But I digress.

I would welcome better ATC in DCS because I believe it would make it more enjoyable for me. Egotistical, yes.

[Slippa]

I’d like ATC too. 

When I started learning DCS I was expecting it to be there. Then again, I was expecting windsocks to be giving us an idea which way we should be taking off too.

For those of us that enjoy some Multi-Player madness having ATC could be a good thing. 

[Gary]

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

[Gary]

43 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Thanks for the demonstration. Only a pedant would feel the need to include “I think” in a forum that is exclusively opinions. And I don't think only a pedant would regimented ATC is an appropriate use of development time. 

I've fixed that for you too.

[cfrag]

3 minutes ago, Gary said:

I've fixed that for you too.

Indeed. Imagine if "Cogito, ergo sum" was stated as a fact, not opinion. <shudder>

Yeah, I know: "cfrag, si tacuisses..."  

 

 

[Gunfreak]

Having recently tried that other sim with fully working ATC and com ladders.

It would massively improve DCS. Following the directions of ATC sets you up for perfectly lined up landing. Even in full VFR, you don't have to see the runway. Just follow directions of speed, attitude and heading and you end up on final with the runway a head of you.

[Gary]

2 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Having recently tried that other sim with fully working ATC and com ladders.

It would massively improve DCS. Following the directions of ATC sets you up for perfectly lined up landing. Even in full VFR, you don't have to see the runway. Just follow directions of speed, attitude and heading and you end up on final with the runway a head of you.

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

[rob10]

ATC complete re-write is a long term project that is being worked on as previously stated by ED.  What priority level it has/how far along it is is unknown.  Lots of people would like to see it improved, but there are lots of people who would also argue there are a lot of higher priority items.

[VirusAM]

On 10/25/2024 at 10:36 PM, =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

thanks...

I get that...I thought that the user was referring to some cool ATC mod...unfortunately not.

[=475FG= Dawger]

25 minutes ago, VirusAM said:

thanks...

I get that...I thought that the user was referring to some cool ATC mod...unfortunately not.

The coolest ATC mod is to get a human being to act as your ATC. 

[Freakmeister51]

On 10/25/2024 at 10:01 AM, antiload said:

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. 

 

I’d also like to add the confusing dialog from ATC when you are coming in for a PVA and after asking for inbound clearance and when flying close to the airfield, ATC will come back, “Cleared for visual, contact tower “. You can’t see the runway, so how can you be cleared for visual…..

Small things like that and, as you mentioned, being cleared for takeoff and then denied takeoff and then being cleared again, make cold starts tiresome.

[buceador]

23 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Its a silly idea. The PIC is the ultimate authority on the operation of the aircraft. 

As a former RWP I agree with all your descriptions of ATC and especially PIC however your conclusion that CTAF is sufficient is strange given that DCS already implements a bastardised version of ATC and that other major FS that we cannot name () has clearly invested many programming hours in creating a passable ATC environment.
DCS is a simulation which prides itself on realism, given that fact, a desire to improve upon an existing feature is laudable, in my opinion.

22 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

And only a pedant would think regimented ATC is an appropriate use of development time. 

And yet significant development time was invested in prettying up the pilots...

[MrReynolds]

21 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Having recently tried that other sim with fully working ATC and com ladders.

It would massively improve DCS. Following the directions of ATC sets you up for perfectly lined up landing. Even in full VFR, you don't have to see the runway. Just follow directions of speed, attitude and heading and you end up on final with the runway a head of you.

+1  

Scanning through this I was thinking about mentioning the "other" sim too!!!

 

[cfrag]

24 minutes ago, buceador said:

your conclusion that CTAF is sufficient is strange

I feel it was a non sequitur. Me being the PIC means I'm responsible and accountable for my actions. Using additional tools / procedures to make an approach safer is IMHO being responsible and smart, like using a GPS in your cockpit even though having sectional charts would be sufficient under VFR. Or requesting a progressive on an unfamiliar airfield even though you have your Jeppesens open and studied pre-flight. I'd also point out that "sufficient" is far removed from "good", and given a choice, I always prefer my experience be good. IRL and in games.  

24 minutes ago, buceador said:

And yet significant development time was invested in prettying up the pilots...

Ha. Indeed! There's a lot of that (non-core 'eye-candy' development that has little bearing on the fidelity of the core simulation) going on. Didn't ED tout 'Mach-Cones' (Vapor cones) as something to look forward to in their Jan 2023 newsletter? To me, that's pretty much the quintessential "empty fluff" that takes effort to develop with little tangible return from a pilot's perspective.

Edited October 27, 2024 by cfrag

[Gary]

1 hour ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

The coolest ATC mod is to get a human being to act as your ATC. 

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