Welcome to TechNet Blogs Sign in | Join | Help

P-12C Pilot

The Flight Simulator experience and other tangential thoughts
FMS, ATC, SIDS & STARS

All of these features are often requested and we are very aware that one segment of our users want these in the product.

We seriously talked about all of these during the development of FSX and there were several reasons why each fell off the plate.

FMS - I designed a pseudo FMS using the GPS backend that might have worked okay, but in retrospect the people that really want an FMS would have been disappointed with it and the majority of users wouldn't have cared, so it's just as well we didn't pursue that design.

For an accurate FMS, we would have to build a different one for each of the jets in our fleet, modify/upgrade the flight planner system, and incure the testing time penality to get it all done.

Instead of the FMS, we decided we should get a little closer to the current buzz in GA and do the G1000 which we think will appeal to a wider audience. We could not have done the G1000 if we had tried to provide FMS functionality in our jets.

We may decided to build an FMS or two in the future, but for now, the third party community is doing a great job with this.

SIDS & STARS - The same arguments described for the FMS apply, although it mostly comes down to a lot more data that I'm not sure our contracts with data providers includes (it may, I'm not sure), a huge testing load to see if they all work, and without the FMS, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to have them in the first place.

ATC Enhancements - This seems to have the most people tied in knots on forums, and I think it's understandable that they are. During the initial design and redesign for FSX, all of the various requests for ATC were on the table. Many of the fixes are more complex than you would think, and are risky because we could easily introduce more bugs and problems in the end. That said, I'm sure our developers are capable of doing most of what has been requested, but not easily. For instance one of the requests is to make the voice speak faster and more realistically. Frankly, using the system we have that will NEVER happen. We have thousands of lines recorded and these are combined as you fly to build the phrases necessary. To do this takes time and it will never sound natural.

The ATC system is labor intensive and with every version of the product we need to record more lines. To support international accents would be virtually impossible for us to do as we would have to record thousands of lines for each accent and the accents might get messed up because of how we combine different lines to build the resulting lines you hear. On top of that there are storage space concerns for each accent, so we would probably have to limit the number of accents we could do, and then we would be criticised for not including this accent or that for a particular region of the world. It's just not worth it...

As for the future of the ATC feature, I have to question how long we should carry it along. The long range future of the franchise will be on-line and getting the ATC system to work on line is a nightmare concept. I am all for retaining a single player experience into the future, so maybe it will continue to be maintained going forward, but it will be a little unlikely that we will invest a lot of time and money expanding the system further (I can hear the cries of unfair treatment and M$ commentary already).

As for the on-line element, I really think it's more fun, more interesting, and potentially more realistic to interact with a real human controller than to use our ATC system. VATSIM is hardcore and intimidating for most users, and frankly requires either real pilot training, or at least some study time before a user would be accepted within that environment. We built our Air Traffic Controller options in multi-player so that users could have this experience in smaller and hopefully friendly sessions and try it out with a real human controller. If you don't like one session and a particular controller(s), then join a different session. We hope to promote controllers that can build a reputation as great controllers to interact with, and kind of make them celebrities in their own right. Maybe we will just have our community team play that role until it all gets going on it's own.

Eventually some of our users that cut their teeth on smaller sessions will try out VATSIM or IVAO or some of the smaller MMO groups and grow their skills that way (it should be technically much easier to get into these groups with FSX).

I know I didn't answer most of the questions being posed on forums, but I hope this information helps a little.

Posted: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:49 AM by P-12C

Comments

johnm said:

Is online play with default router settings possible (ie is all that directplay stuff fixed / changed)?
# August 24, 2006 4:33 PM

jcmissionary said:

While I can understand why ATC wasn't improved this time around, please don't chop it entirely.  
Unless MS is planning on having a round-the-clock ATC center open. :-)
# August 24, 2006 6:20 PM

Manny said:

IMO, Multiplayer and Single player can never be mutually exclusive. The idea that Multiplayer is the future and single player in flight simming is  on the way out is simply wrong. Here is why. Unlike some PC Games flight simmers for the most part are adults who fly by themselves. Expecting this human behavior to change is pretty ambiteous. VATSIM and other groupware systems are not heavily populated not because they are hard or have a steep learning curve, its simply because many times I want to fly by myself with an automated AI and ATC..where I chose the time, place and the rules. This is freedom.

I like to fly VATSIM on occasion.  But I don't believe I would ever get together with 16 novices or strangers and get to fly in a small environment for very long.


That ain't going to change.

Manny
# August 24, 2006 8:09 PM

P-12C said:

These are good points, and as I mentioned we are not going to abandon the single player experience for people that want a solo experience. I suspect that some users wouldn't buy the product at all if it required on-line interaction. What is important about this discussion is that we are having it, and that the ATC system is difficult and expensive to maintain (much less significantly improve).
# August 24, 2006 11:16 PM

frantzy said:

It's just awesome to read the rationale behind these decisions.  Reasonable people can disagree, but knowing the rationale will hopefully cut a lot of unreasonable people out of the conversation.

The only slight challenge I would make is around the SIDS and STARS logic.  They're available in the real world Garmin 430 so the lack of an FMS doesn't necessarily rule out SIDS/STARS.   Of course the data considerations you cite may.

Very good decisions IMHO about the FMS and G1000.  

Finally, I never judge an FS version until I see what the third-party vendor community can do with it.  In that regard I have very high hopes for FSX.

It's the home stretch...hang in there!

Mike
# August 25, 2006 12:14 AM

P-12C said:

Interesting on the Garmin and SIDS and STARS. I am obviously a bit behind the times on my avionics knowledge. That's what happens when you stop being the aircaft PM...
# August 25, 2006 12:27 AM

EdrickV said:

One thing to remember about flying online is that there may not be enough controllers compared to the amount of people that just want to fly at any particular time. :)

Of the two big groups I know of, both are a bit too regulated for me. I'm not much for IFR flying, and would never get a pilot's license in the real world with the way I fly. :)

The thing I really miss when I've flown online is ATIS. And sometimes tower/ground control. I'm not looking for the most realistic ATC possible. But it would be nice to be able to fly online with friends and be able to know what the active runway is at the same time. :)
# August 25, 2006 1:57 AM

MartijnPleines said:

Thanks for the explanation!

I totally agree with Manny-please please please keep the ATC for those of us who prefer going 'solo'! The availabilty-or, more likely, lack of-of ATC enthusiasts providing ATC services in a pilot's preferred areas at the right time is also a very good point...on-line ATC will never be available everywhere all the time while the built-in ATC is...Please don't abandon it-even if it cannot be expanded anymore!

On SIDs and STARs, for the next version (beyond FSX), would it be possible to at least provide a common data framework (XML?) allowing users to create them themselves, and hopefully a flight planner and/or avionics that could tap into those data? I daren't even ask for ATC compatibilty as well...Oops I just did...;-)

The new additions for FSX you mentioned earlier look like wonderful improvements, why do we keep asking for more? Because what's been achieved already over the years has been so good, we only want to get in deeper...
Thanks for a great simming experience!

Martijn
# August 25, 2006 3:27 AM

JayCee said:

I appreciate the enormous complexity of improving ATC or AI in general, but I'm optimistic in these matters - what seems an almost impossible request now may very well be feasible 5 or 10 years from now
“Downgrading” a product certainly isn’t going to help, but I understand the team had very different priorities this time round.  
# August 25, 2006 5:08 AM

stigt said:

I heartily agree with Martijn, a system which allows users to create their own SID/STAR's (like PMDG) would be a great addition. Without a doubt most important airports will be covered within a couple of months after release. If there is a way to make the ATC interact with this database it would solve the problem without investing all the man-hours in designing and testing the procedures. Just give us the framework, the userbase will fill it in further.
# August 25, 2006 9:29 AM

davidvoogd said:

The current ATC system does a good enough job for me, but I don't personally see online atc as the future. I have flown on Vatsim quite a bit and it can be fun at times, but I find it too much work finding the exact route the controllers will require, hunting down charts etc. Also I don't find it works well for GA flights.

I don't have the free time I used to so I like just creating a flight in FS, use the quick flightplanner and set off, the less prep work required the better.

Also I often have to pause mid flight to have dinner, answer the phone etc., and understandably Vatsim doesn't appreciate it when someone pauses and takes off for a while(nothing like a 747 paused on short final at a busy airport :P) so offline atc and flying makes a lot more sense for me.

# August 25, 2006 9:32 AM

P-12C said:

Lots of great feedback here and please be assured we are listening and taking notes :)
# August 25, 2006 12:46 PM

kack911 said:

Thanks for taking the time to explain the reasoning behind the decision.

I'm relieved to hear that despite your belief that multi-player is the future, you will be retaining the single-player experience.

Like others have said, yes, VATSIM and IVAO may be significantly more dynamic and/or "realistic" than a scripted ATC engine, but unfortunately, those online services fail to meet my needs. It's a very rare occurance for me to find places to fly that are fully staffed by controllers. Quite often there are very large gaps in coverage, and that spoils the experience for me.

I love the default ATC because, I can "talk" to every facility from Clearance Delivery to Center, and it's always there when I want it, even at 3am.

We've seen a dramatic increase in the level of detail an realism within the game world in FSX, and I can only imagine the amount of work that went into creating it. I'm thinking of the completely new spherical earth, the completely new Hi-res texture art, the brand new avionics and 3-d models, etc, etc,...and I think the payoff for that effort is going to be huge.

Similarly, the amount of work to create a truly advanced ATC and AI system may be extensive, but I think the payoff would be truly worth it. Especially if the techniques used to make it work advance the current state-of-the-art.

In short, the single-player mode of play is here to stay. Maybe a ground-up overhaul of the ATC system will pay bigger dividends than you realise. Attacking the problem from a different direction may provide a workable solution to many of the obstacles currently standing in the way of improvement. For instance, using a TTS engine to generate the ATC and player voices could solve both the storage space issue and the unnatural voice concatenation issue.

I sincerely hope to see some major improvement in the ATC and AI department next time around. I guess I'll just have to enjoy the incredibly rich and detailed environment of FSX until then. ;

Nick Landolfi
# August 26, 2006 6:00 PM

tdavart said:

I would have to cast a vote for offline ATC also. I've never had much desire to fly online in any sim I"ve had, and I can say that probably won't change. If FS were to eliminate the in-game ATC, it would cut out a huge part of the experience for me, and I would probably stick with the last version to have it, or go with another sim. I would be satisfied if it were kept as-is, and carried on with future editions. After all, everyone who desires has the option to use VATSIM. If ATC were removed from FS, it would leave us offline flyers in the cold.
# August 28, 2006 12:41 PM

thekloWn said:

I do believe that online play is the future of the flight simming experience, but cutting the offline ATC from the game would destroy some of the experience for all the reasons stated above. I have tried other flight sims, but the offline seemed bare and dry without the structure that MSFS's ATC gives. I think you should advance on as much as possible in the future.
# August 29, 2006 1:09 AM

Matt_Fox said:

There is one very importat aspect of the the sim that can never be duplicated by multiplayer.  That is the ability to populate the FS world with real world AI aircraft flying real-world scedules.  With well setup AI, I can land at any airport in the world and see it populated with actual aircraft that fly to that airport.  I can land at KLAX and see several dozen AI aircraft taxiing around, parking at their correct gates, in line for departure, etc.

With multiplayer technology that disables AI traffic, the airports will always pretty much empty.  

I would prefer to fly alone and have a world full of AI traffic than fly online with VATSIM (too many rules and steep learning curve) or FS multiplayer (too few rules and too many kids doing stupid things).  I hope MS reconsiders their future plans for AI.

As others have suggested, at least make it easier for the 3rd party developers to fill in the blanks that MS isn't willing to take on.

Matt Fox
# September 4, 2006 11:55 PM

Damian said:

To quote: "For instance one of the requests is to make the voice speak faster and more realistically. Frankly, using the system we have that will NEVER happen. We have thousands of lines recorded and these are combined as you fly to build the phrases necessary. To do this takes time and it will never sound natural."

I disagree, and wholeheartedly believe y'all CAN do it.  It has been improved tremendously by a 3rd party developer - EditVoicepack.  It not only speeds up transmission without making it sound Mickey Mouse-ish, it also gives you the choice of using ICAO or IATA phraseaology AND adding the all important "wind check" information as part of take-off and landing instructions.  The only shortcoming (and what y'all will have to figure out) is making IATA/ICAO phraseology to switch automatically based upon location.  

I agree with your point about international accents, but the ability to switch phraseology would be a more than welcome addition to those of us who make international flights as well as for those "non-ICAO country" customers as well.

Damian

# September 27, 2006 8:36 PM

pilottj said:

Hello,

I have been an avid MSFSer for a long time and am also a licenced commercial pilot.  I really appreciate the hard work the MS team has put into putting the world of civil aviation on my desktop.  The ATC was one of the major selling points when I got FS2k2, the ability to file IFR plans and be told to 'hold position' at an airport...just like in real life was pretty cool.  I hope the ATC engine stays well into the future FS line.  The one thing that has been holding me up on getting FSX is the IFR experience.  Practicing IFR on FS is a bit cheaper than the real thing :)  

I agree that it would be almost impossible, at least with current 'affordable' technology to have every accent, 'human controller reaction' with AI ATC.  

I would mainly like to see improvement to traffic seperation on the ground and air in reasonable accordance to the FAR/AIM Manual or ICAO regulations.  

One example of this could be in requesting clearence to the active runway.  Instead of automatically receiving taxi instructions, ATC could say 'standby' or 'roger - hold position' immediately.  I would rather have my AI traffic hold at their parking positions for a long time than end up in a big traffic jam.  That detracts from the hustle n bustle excitment/immersion of a busy airport.  Much of the same could be implemented in the air in the way of holds or '360s'

The ATC engine has come a ways from FS2k2 but I think continual improvment on the traffic seperation would greatly improve the IFR experience and overall ATC flight experience.  

Cheers

TJ

# October 12, 2006 3:53 AM
Anonymous comments are disabled
Page view tracker