ATC

[Eaglevapour]

An authentic ATC for solo players would be a great addition which would make the experience more realistic,

[Silver_Dragon]

On progress

 

[sirrah]

15 hours ago, Eaglevapour said:

An authentic ATC for solo players would be a great addition which would make the experience more realistic,

Wished for many many times and, as Silver Dragon mentioned, it has ED's attention.

There is no recent info on progress. I can however imagine this to be a huge endeavor for ED.

 

Personally, improved/proper ATC is my no.1 wish for DCS. Apart from the Supercarrier comms, current ATC is a laugh and doesn't fit into place in Digital Combat Simulator. I'd gladly pay, to see proper ATC implemented.

[cfrag]

22 minutes ago, sirrah said:

improved/proper ATC is my no.1 wish for DCS

Agreed. I believe that this is implied, but I hope that ATC isn't limited to, well, ATC but includes proper ground procedures, and I hope that it also includes AI units observing the commands. So, for example, if you are on the ground, and ask for departure, TWR can tell you that you are number two after the Tiger, and have an F-5 actually crossing the hold-short and taking off soon afterwards, with TWR actually clearing the Tiger first (and the F-5's pilot acknowledging correctly).

One can dream, I guess. 

Edited August 22, 2024 by cfrag

[SharpeXB]

I would just settle for it not saying “Unable to clear for takeoff, runway occupied” every time at an empty airfield

[sirrah]

47 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Agreed. I believe that this is implied, but I hope that ATC isn't limited to, well, ATC but includes proper ground procedures, and I hope that it also includes AI units observing the commands. So, for example, if you are on the ground, and ask for departure, TWR can tell you that you are number two after the Tiger, and have an F-5 actually crossing the hold-short and taking off soon afterwards, with TWR actually clearing the Tiger first (and the F-5's pilot acknowledging correctly).

One can dream, I guess. 

 

Indeed, I only mentioned "ATC", but that should include real life procedures, like requesting touch and goes, flight packages that after startup/taxi wait for eachother at the active rwy apron, declaring emergencies, etc. Probably lot of AI programming involved and possibly one of the reasons it hasn't been implemented already.

 

24 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I would just settle for it not saying “Unable to clear for takeoff, runway occupied” every time at an empty airfield

Amen to that

Well, this thread is only mentioning ATC. We haven't touched the discussion about military related comms 

Edited August 22, 2024 by sirrah

[Majinbot]

Someone is working faster than ED

[Biggus]

ATC changes are desperately necessary.

But they must be part of a communication and control overhaul that includes GCI, AWACS, JTAC and any other class of unit that provides control for tactical aircraft.  It would be disappointing to go through flawless startup and departure comms that are immersive and realistic, only to check in with Darkstar or Magic or Overlord and get what we have now.  I'd argue that if anything, ATC should be the lowest priority of such an overhaul.  It's still completely necessary but in a simulation with the main focus being on combat, effective combat control is several magnitudes of greater importance.  But that's just my view and others are more than welcome to disagree.

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, Biggus said:

ATC changes are desperately necessary.

But they must be part of a communication and control overhaul that includes GCI, AWACS, JTAC and any other class of unit that provides control for tactical aircraft.  It would be disappointing to go through flawless startup and departure comms that are immersive and realistic, only to check in with Darkstar or Magic or Overlord and get what we have now.  I'd argue that if anything, ATC should be the lowest priority of such an overhaul.  It's still completely necessary but in a simulation with the main focus being on combat, effective combat control is several magnitudes of greater importance.  But that's just my view and others are more than welcome to disagree.

Yeah I'd say that's fair and yes - the disparity between having an improved system (i.e. the supercarrier - though even that still has omissions) and other agencies (be they friendly AI flights, ATC etc) is pretty jarring and so they should ideally be improved as part of a complete communications overhaul.

And yeah, being a game where the main thing is combat aviation, maybe there should be higher priority given to functions directly related to combat (though ATC is still completely necessary to have, as you said). 

[Exorcet]

4 hours ago, Biggus said:

It's still completely necessary but in a simulation with the main focus being on combat, effective combat control is several magnitudes of greater importance.  But that's just my view and others are more than welcome to disagree.

I wouldn't say that you're wrong, but when the AI can't even get into or out of the airport the rest of the mission falls apart. ATC dialogue will be great, but a huge part of what I hope to see from an ATC overhaul is some efficiency and reason to AI airport operations.

[sirrah]

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Yeah I'd say that's fair and yes - the disparity between having an improved system (i.e. the supercarrier - though even that still has omissions) and other agencies (be they friendly AI flights, ATC etc) is pretty jarring and so they should ideally be improved as part of a complete communications overhaul.

And yeah, being a game where the main thing is combat aviation, maybe there should be higher priority given to functions directly related to combat (though ATC is still completely necessary to have, as you said). 

Although eventually we want the same, I'd prefer ED would prioritize common/basic, but proper ATC and only thereafter continue expanding with the (probably more complicated) "combat" related stuff

[Northstar98]

9 minutes ago, sirrah said:

Although eventually we want the same, I'd prefer ED would prioritize common/basic, but proper ATC and only thereafter continue expanding with the (probably more complicated) "combat" related stuff

I mean, ideally this would be a complete overhaul for all communications with AI entities in-game. There's certainly plenty of good arguments for one or the other.

Personally, I'd lean towards ATC as that's something more relevant to my personal use case. Right now, I consider the in-built ATC to be lacking to the point of not being worth using - that's with a single player aircraft, it gets far worse if you have AI flights landing at around the same time - not only will ATC and AI aircraft not interact with each other at all, the ATC system makes no attempt to manage the airspace around aerdromes - with a suitably large enough number of aircraft & aircraft types, this leads to complete chaos as all the aircraft trace out the same exact circle, over the same location, at the same altitudes, but fly at different speeds (depending on type) with no concept of spacing - with predictable results.

[Glide]

So, I never use the ATC.  The only time I think about it is for turning on runway lights.  For me, I like to keep it simple.  Perhaps as you get in range of the airfield you can start picking up ATC calls like simple status messages, no commands you have to follow.  This will add some lifelike chatter around active airfields, but as background to create immersion.  That should be easy to achieve without too much development.

Personally, i don't see the value in a fully functional ATC even for full mil-sim missions.  That's a lot of development for the sim, and the money-rich civilian sim is still struggling with getting it right.  We all know how to fly the pattern, and we know what ATC would say to us.  Do we really need to click our way through all that to have good immersion?  Convince me.

[Exorcet]

4 hours ago, Glide said:

Personally, i don't see the value in a fully functional ATC even for full mil-sim missions.

It's nice to know if a runway or the airspace around it is open. Getting a taxi route to the runway or an open rearming area would also be nice. The AI will take a particular path and if you don't follow it, or create a situation with an AI conflict, you can lock down the airport. If we want mission automation, so less scripted and more reactive missions, it would be help to have ATC managing an airfield, especially if things like transport flights and QRA interceptors are going to have a place.

If you're speaking only about player communication, some of the above could be considered external issues, though in general important information should be relayed to anyone at the airport.

[sirrah]

13 hours ago, Glide said:

So, I never use the ATC.  The only time I think about it is for turning on runway lights.  For me, I like to keep it simple.  Perhaps as you get in range of the airfield you can start picking up ATC calls like simple status messages, no commands you have to follow.  This will add some lifelike chatter around active airfields, but as background to create immersion.  That should be easy to achieve without too much development.

Personally, i don't see the value in a fully functional ATC even for full mil-sim missions.  That's a lot of development for the sim, and the money-rich civilian sim is still struggling with getting it right.  We all know how to fly the pattern, and we know what ATC would say to us.  Do we really need to click our way through all that to have good immersion?  Convince me.

Have you ever played that other (~30yo) military flightsim and had the pleasure of hearing proper BRA calls and the broad range of realistic callsigns for instance?

If in DCS we had something even remotely close to that, it would already make ne very happy.

DCS is a mil flightsim and as correctly operating the radios, following directions, interaction with other flight packages and ground units, is a huge part of flying in real life, it should also be part of this simulator. At least that's my opinion.

Edited August 24, 2024 by sirrah

[Northstar98]

16 hours ago, Glide said:

So, I never use the ATC.  The only time I think about it is for turning on runway lights.

I mean, right now that's the only thing it's really useful for. That and for getting one vector if you somehow manage to get lost.

16 hours ago, Glide said:

Perhaps as you get in range of the airfield you can start picking up ATC calls like simple status messages, no commands you have to follow.  This will add some lifelike chatter around active airfields, but as background to create immersion.  That should be easy to achieve without too much development.

What would be the point of it then? This is something you can already do with fairly simple triggers.

16 hours ago, Glide said:

Personally, i don't see the value in a fully functional ATC even for full mil-sim missions.

Have you ever played that other F-16 (and now also F-15C)-orientated sim? That one has an ATC system that is leaps and bounds ahead of DCS. It's incredibly important when you have busy airbases, with lots of aircraft.

At the moment the current ATC makes no attempt to manage anything, be it in the air or on the ground, which can lead to what I'd describe as utter carnage with lots of AI flights. It drastically takes away from the experience and causes more problems than it solves.

16 hours ago, Glide said:

That's a lot of development for the sim, and the money-rich civilian sim is still struggling with getting it right.

But the other, non-money rich, non-WW2 combat flight simulator has one that's probably as close to perfect as you can get in any consumer flight simulator (at least).

16 hours ago, Glide said:

We all know how to fly the pattern, and we know what ATC would say to us.  Do we really need to click our way through all that to have good immersion?

You seem to be only thinking about this from the perspective of your aircraft in a vacuum.

If it's just you, alone, operating around an empty airfield, then yes, I can see how it's less useful - you're largely just clicking through a series of triggered menus.

However, when you have busy airbases with lots of AI flights, then it becomes very important - a lack of a proper ATC system (which is not simply just triggered radio callouts like the one we have for the supercarrier) can absolute destroy missions with lots of AI aircraft.

For instance, with the current system, as I've described above makes absolutely no attempt to manage the airspace around an airbase - it simply sticks all of the arriving aircraft into the same orbit at the same altitude, which leads to the kind of carnage I've described here. This would absolutely break any kind of persistent mission (i.e. one that tracks things like aircraft inventory and losses) as soon as the scope is sufficiently high (which might just mean - realistically replicates the number of assets in a real operation).

It also doesn't properly manage aircraft on the ground either - it won't manage the traffic on the taxiways, it makes no attempt to try and get aircraft off at the appropriate time (you can't even set it - and what I've described here would be useful for the mission editor in general (because the time calculations it gives you doesn't account for takeoff time)). I've had missions where I'm the only arriving aircraft at an airbase but there's a conga line of AI aircraft taxiing to depart. Even though the ATC system had cleared me to land, the AI aircraft didn't care and made incursion after incursion onto the runway to takeoff, forcing me to do go-around after go-around while down on fuel. Eventually I just thre my hand up and said "sod it" and managed to land, narrowly avoiding an aircraft taking off.

If I was in the other sim however, with an ATC system that's superior to an almost indescribable degree, it would be telling AI aircraft on the runway to expedite and hurry up out of the way and would be telling taxiing aircraft to hold short - in both cases the AI would respond and obey their instructions - this not only makes the airbase feel more alive, but gives me a much more worthwhile and less frustrating experience - I don't have to try find ways to work around the AI's stupidity like I do in DCS.

That above, makes me want to avoid using AI aircraft almost entirely around airbases and instead make use of air starts and group deactivate. I'm not sure it's possible to see this as anything other than a bad thing. It makes for an unimmersive experience that feels much more dead than it could be. Having experienced something where this isn't the case makes the problems all the more present in DCS.

There's also other things as well:

• The different services (ground, approach, tower etc) aren't separated by frequency when they should be (where applicable). With busy airports, this leads to comms getting clogged up and here it's a good thing that the AI don't interact with ATC, even if it makes SP airfields feel dead.
• There's no ATIS, which would be important if we ever get weather that changes with time.
• ATC doesn't support parallel runways.
• ATC doesn't provide taxi instructions.
• ATC only supports straight-in approaches, it doesn't support PAR approaches, it doesn't support overhead breaks (and will tell you "go around, runway occupied" even when the airfield is empty - this doesn't exactly help the immersion).
• The english language ATC only has one voice actor, which doesn't help the immersion either.
• Many aerodromes don't have their name voiced, again, this doesn't help the immersion.
• ATC and the AI don't support section takeoffs (not unless they're starting from the runway), which increases the interval between departing aircraft, making takeoff operations take longer than they need to).
• The ATC doesn't support contigencies or emergencies - there's no way for the ATC to prioritise landing aircraft.

As for the immersion, having AI aircraft that don't interact with the ATC system at all is definitely not immersive, again, it makes aerodromes feel dead. And as cfrag pointed out below this also aids situational awareness. 

I could probably go on and on and on about this, but the TL;DR of it all, is give that other sim's ATC system a try and then try and replicate one of its missions in DCS - you'll probably quickly see why it's important. Because, unless you're doing missions where it's just you or have a very small number of aircraft you can quickly run into problems which are at best unrealistic/unimmersive and at worst frustrating and mission-breaking.

Edited August 24, 2024 by Northstar98

[cfrag]

19 hours ago, Glide said:

So, I never use the ATC. 

I believe that this is one of the strengths of simulations: things being optional for personal enjoyment. there are always things that are not everyone's cup of tea, and not being forced to use it is what makes simulation games so much better: we can enjoy it on our own terms. Same with start-up procedures: do them, let the computer do it, or start hot. All your choice. Truth be told, though, your treatment of DCS ATC is spot on - it's really, really bad. Almost as bad as its ground traffic

That being said, ATC and associated procedures in flight sims to many pilots are like traffic lights to city driving sims - they are such an essential part of the real thing that to some it feel strange when they aren't there. Although not really missed, not having them is one of these 'deafening silences', the invisible hole that is still palpable. I've never cherished RT procedures, but since they are such a central part of flying, their absence is the 'splinter in your mind' (note: I'm not a military aviator, so I don't know how they feel, but tend to think that they feel this even stronger) that irritates us.  

19 hours ago, Glide said:

This will add some lifelike chatter around active airfields, but as background to create immersion.  That should be easy to achieve without too much development.

That is indeed very simple to accomplish - simply run a background sound file. Unfortunately, those who feel the urge instinctively know it's not the real deal, because they are trained to subconsciously listen for the stations that they have prioritized, and they do unwittingly parse what is said to build a mental image of the surrounding airspace: the heavy coming in from the north, the Cherokee that is approaching your destination, and the closed airspace 30 miles to the west. Having the constant radio chatter may sound like a soundtrack to many, but for others it's an essential source of information, like a mind's eye. So if you imitate lifelike chatter, to those who use it it would be like listening to a Parrot, uh, parroting human speech. A nice trick, but meaningless. What I would like is some contextual synthetic background chatter - radio procedures are that: procedures, and they can be simulated. Creating realistic (if monotone) contextual radio chatter based on local traffic isn't that difficult.

19 hours ago, Glide said:

Personally, i don't see the value in a fully functional ATC even for full mil-sim missions. 

Ah, but in that case, you don't need convincing because you are of course fully correct: you don't need ATC to enjoy DCS to the fullest. And that is how it should be. That does not, however, mean that everyone has your preference, and should be denied access to good ATC. Let me try and give an example: my friend loves DCS and hates start-up procedures. She's a much better pilot than I am and would rather air-start than run through a full start-up. I find start-ups to be a chore most of the time, but on some days it find it relaxing to run a full start-up myself (usually Hog or Huey). And that is the incredible advantage of DCS: it's there if you want it, and can be ignored otherwise -- it makes such a greater, better whole. Although I seldom use them, having the option of running through a full start-up makes DCS a much better game. 

19 hours ago, Glide said:

We all know how to fly the pattern, and we know what ATC would say to us.

Ah, but how much better would it be if you hear Tower tell you 'Stingray, you are cleared for long final on 08', only to hear someone declaring an emergency while you gear-down? Or Tower yelling at some doofus to expedite clearing the runway for the incoming traffic -- that is why we listen to the local chatter, and feel almost neurotically naked without it.  

19 hours ago, Glide said:

Do we really need to click our way through all that to have good immersion?  Convince me.

You do not need convincing because you already found your place of comfort in DCS, and you don't need ATC to make it a better game for you. Other people would love it if DCS would be able to scratch that itch they feel. IMHO, adding good ATC would make DCS a better game -- for me, not you. There are lots of things in DCS that can/need be improved (no ####, Sherlock, I know  ) -- for me, good ATC/TWR/GND is very high on the list, far above better ground AI. We all can wish, and this is a wish list, so I'm all for it.

Edited August 24, 2024 by cfrag

[Glide]

Yes, those are all good reasons to have realistic ATC.  I did some crowd surfing on YT, and I could not find one video of a busy DCS airport.  Look at Vatsim stats.  I think it's a very small market for simmers who like to follow ATC instructions.

I could try to build one, but I start my AI's in the air so they don't foul up on the taxiways.  They RTB when they need to which provides some nice immersion.  I had one Apache decide to land on the Perry one time. 

I have played full mil-sim quite a bit with the old stray dogs back in the day.  I don't recall the ATC being a big part of it.  In an ideal world, sure go for it. A functional ATC would be a valuable asset if it could be packaged and reused.  I think the real money is in modules, flight models, and maps.

Edited August 24, 2024 by Glide

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, Glide said:

I did some crowd surfing on YT, and I could not find one video of a busy DCS airport.

I don't doubt it. But have you considered that one of the reasons for this is because the ATC is so useless? I'm certainly disuaded from making missions with busy airbases due to the state of the system, be it single player or multiplayer (though at least with the latter players can coordinate with each other).

So I'd caution against this as a reason, because useless ATC could very well be one of the reasons why you don't see this done. It can also set up a bit of a loop where you have awful ATC, so nobody wants to make missions where it's relevant/important, so you don't see any missions where it's relevant/important, which leads people to see ATC as unimportant, which results in the awful ATC remaining awful, so nobody wants to make missions where it's relevant... So on and so on.

3 hours ago, Glide said:

Look at Vatsim stats.  I think it's a very small market for simmers who like to follow ATC instructions.

Just following ATC instructions in and of itself is a minor point - at least for me. I follow ATC instructions because there's an actual tangible benefit to doing so and there are consequences for not doing so.

The main thing is more the management of aircraft both on the ground and in the air, so as to facilitate busy airbases, as would maybe be expected in a more real-life operation.

In missions with lots of AI aircraft (which is practically the default in single player campaigns in the other sim), I'd argue it's downright essential and short of deploying workarounds to bypass it entirely (like starting in the air and despawning aircraft before they land), its absence can be mission-breaking. Especially if persistency is involved.

I also like my airbases to feel more alive - I get that when the AI are interacting with the ATC and actually obeying their instructions, I don't get that with the current system when there's no interaction between them at all and especially when I have to work around the AI's idiocy and the ATC's uselessness.

3 hours ago, Glide said:

I could try to build one, but I start my AI's in the air so they don't foul up on the taxiways.

See?

Wouldn't it be better if you didn't have to do that? And the ATC system instead properly interacted and coordinated aircraft on the ground so that they wouldn't foul up taxiways?

[Glide]

40 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Wouldn't it be better if you didn't have to do that?

Totally.  I stretched my memory a bit, and I recall now going up and down the ladder during our operations in the squad.  That was pretty basic stuff back then.  The issue with ATC is maintaining state.  An ATC AI would have to maintain state for all aircraft "in range" as well as those in the pipeline for approach.  The sim already does this for other reasons.  An AI, for example, will head to a neutral or friendly base for fuel.  Clearly, the AI is "aware" of the base.  Each airfield would have to become an AI thread, and keep a considerable amount of information in memory, and if you have multiple airfields "in range", it gets huge pretty quick.