ConstVoid

14 hours ago, threegreen said:

And what makes you so sure? Because I'm pretty sure we've not seen all what's there. 🙂

It was a simple, sped up flight from runway A to B. As far as I remember no detailed clearance, no ground/ramp handling, no emergency showcase, nothing on whether weather deviations are there, no demonstration of how vectors are handled and how accurate they are, no word on how ATC assigns SIDs/STARs or whether it just goes by whatever you selected in the flight plan, no input on traffic separation as in whether we will still have tons of go-arounds if offline AI is used, no information on how ATC handles your aircraft in the middle of live aircraft movements, no showcase of the ATC outside of the United States (accents, inHg vs. hPa), ...

It was a nice demo but I still have tons of questions.

Precisely. In previous discovery episodes Asobo have been keen to show us the Wow! moments - sound, weather, airport ground traffic/personnel etc. It's the missing items in the IFR episode which lead to the many questions and doubts we're having. If these Wow! features exist why weren't we shown them?

I accept that we shouldn't expect perfect ATC, but in addition to Paladin2005's list I'd add correct FAA and ICAO terminology (separate depending on location, not a mix of both), and InHg vs hPa in different areas of the world.

Call me cynical, but as we didn't see any non-North America ATC messages I'm guessing they haven't got international (hectopascals) baro implemented (yet?). Also they were set to 29.92 the whole time - was this to avoid the repeated messages about being above/below the assigned altitude?

32 minutes ago, Elwyn said:

when they say "not implemented" does it mean they will not simulate it?

The fact that they say 'not currently implemented' and 'not implemented' indicates we may not see the latter.

Let's see if the IFR episode gives us the required warm feeling about ATC. If they're not going to enhance it above the level implied by the time-lapse clip then the next best option would be for them to provide an API so that the whole of ATC / AI traffic can be taken on by a third party. One of the problems with third party ATC add-ons in FSX was that they had to work alongside the in-built ATC, which was a mess. It would be better if either MSFS or the third party software was able to take full control, not a mixture of both.

57 minutes ago, Pastaiolo said:

 And to be honest, a FSX style atc is perfectly enough for a stock simulator. Third parties can work on additions for it no doubt.

I really hope this is a very early version, as I was expecting a lot better, considering the amazing improvements in most other aspects of the sim.

2 hours ago, tweekz said:

Is this some kind of choreography? Wonder how it looks like with the music on.

If not, we are in for some complaining about synced animations I guess! 😄

😄 TBH, based on one of the previous shots I was going to make a jokey comment about the giraffes having identical skins, so how are we going to tell them apart, but I held off doing that when I saw that the animations were all in sync as that's a bit more 'immersion breaking'.

35 minutes ago, Jazz said:

It's a game because as far as I'm aware they left out the part where someone squeezes milk from your tit and then makes delicious cheese from it.

You gotta go all in for it to be a sim😉

"goat" and "delicious cheese"? Does not compute!

5 hours ago, domkle said:

Yes, it is pretty clear to me now, that there will be a subscription but only to get more than 50 aircraft around you in MP and also to access sloped runways (maybe a small extra cost if you want them undulated too). They have not yet settled if the price will be proportional to the size of trees though.

 Did I get everything right to sum up 10 months of forum ?

I think you forgot that the subscription will be double if you want VR (One for each eye), but of course we're not to mention VR in this forum.

p.s. 😁

6 hours ago, JRBarrett said:

Yep! The image of the moon is reversed in the screen shot. It’s not upside down, just left/right swapped. Mare Crisium, the almost perfectly circular dark feature at the upper left should actually appear at the upper right.

That said, the tester who took the screen shot may have accidentally reversed it if they did any post-processing / editing of the image.

Not sure about that - the watermark on the shot reads correctly - iahoo2k - so I don't think it was reversed after capture.

6 hours ago, b737800 said:

A9 A2 EA 20 4C (LDA LDX NOP JMP JSR) or something like that

I may be wrong but I think you have the last two reversed. TBH I can't remember the others.

I'm all for voice synthesis for ATC, but I'm all against voice recognition if it is the only way to interact. By all means have it as an option for those that like it, but let the rest of us have our clickable menus and keyboard input for responses. I already use headphones with any games I play so that I don't disturb the household and I wouldn't want them to have to listen to half of a conversation between ATC an me.

19 hours ago, HumptyDumpty said:

1024kb = 1mb - 1024mb = 1gb - 1024gb = 1tb - 1024tb = 1pb 

Being pedantic, and to avoid annoying the Système international (d'unités):

1024KiB = 1MiB - 1024MiB = 1GiB - 1024GiB = 1TiB - 1024TiB = 1PiB

As long as there's an option NOT to use speech recognition. I don't want to sit there 'talking' to my computer.

They'd more or less have to disregard the transponder data close to the ground, as at my local airport Flightradar24 often reports aircraft going in all sorts of strange directions when they should be on final. This mostly occurs with FlyBe aircraft.

It should be completely optional, not based on whether you have selected real-time weather. If/when Microsoft or 3rd parties come up with a good ATC which controls the player and AI traffic I would still want to have real-time weather, but not real AI, as the ATC wouldn't be in control.

Also fade in/out is a complete fudge that would make me want to turn off AI completely. Much better would be for the in-built ATC to monitor nearby real-world traffic, and inject an AI into FS for each real aircraft. If there is a model/paint available it should use that, otherwise it would pick Landmark etc.The AI would then be under the control of MS ATC until it either reached its destination, or until it was far enough away from the player aircraft to be irrelevant.

The API should be available via a web service so that add-ons can run on other PCs on your network, with full access (read/write) to weather, traffic, aircraft status, controls etc. etc.This would also mean that simple self-written add-ons could be written in a scripting language, such as bash, python, perl etc.

52 minutes ago, Noooch said:

Until now I see 3 options for ATC:

- Real Traffic AI with Live ATC chatter (see and hear the world LIVE) no interaction at all with ATC

- ATC using Microsoft TTS technology (they have plenty of accents available) with fictional traffic (or maybe real?)

- Multiplayer with real ATC simmers (like a native IVAO)

The multiplayer mode should be switched in 2: -hardcore mode for hardcore simmers using real procedures and real controllers

                                                                          -easy mode for beginners (like a sandbox)

I don't think real traffic is feasible with your second option. Who would be vectoring, separating etc. the traffic - the real world controllers of course, so the MFS ATC would be relegated to be a passive observer. It wouldn't even be able to slot the player into the pattern as the real world controller wouldn't provide the spacing.

To my mind, it has to be fictional traffic, controlled by MFS ATC, so that the player is fully integrated with the AI.

Also, as someone who preferred Radar Contact over the built in FSX ATC I hope it is much better than the latter.

1 hour ago, fsx76 said:

I am using the box edition of 
FSX Gold.

It looks like you're not using a pre-release version of MFS, so you'd probably do better asking in the FSX forum.

My memory may be a bit shaky as I haven't simmed, and hence haven't used RC, for some years, but I think that even though the VOR must be close to the destination, you are instructed to hold 40 nm from the VOR.

In case you're wondering - I'm just spending some time here whilst waiting for more info on the next MFS, in case it might tempt me back to simming.

It's not a show stopper, but I find it irritating that the Aerosoft forums, like many others which have changed software recently, do not have an option to 'mark read and return to board index'. Instead it just marks the current forum read and you have to follow the breadcrumbs at the top of the page to work back up the forum hierarchy. It just slows down the browsing experience, and keeps me away from the simulator that little bit longer.Ian

Tim,I haven't used an aircraft with a decent FMC since I moved to FSX, so this is all from memory, but what I used to do was cheat! As jd has said, RC always gives you a hold 40 nm from the last VOR on your flightplan, assuming that's within a few nm of your destination. I always used to put an extra fix into the FMC at the point RC would give you a hold. If there are no other fixes between the last VOR and the holding point this can be done fairly easily using a 'place-bearing-distance' fix based on the VOR using the reciprocal of the inbound track as the bearing. If there are other fixes less than 40 nm from the last VOR then you have to be a bit more creative with the holding fix but can still be done.Having said all that, I agree that it would be more realistic to give holds at a real waypoint on the flightplan approximately 40 nm from the destination, if there happens to be one. I think I even suggested that to jd & Doug a few years back.Ian

Thanks jd - file downloaded and installed successfully, and registration request on its way

After a disk crash I've discovered my backups didn't include the files to upgrade 4.0 to 4.2. I checked the 4.3 release notes at http://www.jdtllc.com/v4/notes%20for%204.3.txt but the URLs mentioned there don't seem to work (http://www.davevollmer.com/rcv401update.exe http://www.davevollmer.com/rcv4_3831.zip)I've now found the 4.0 to 4.01 update at http://www.jdtllc.com/v4/rcv401update.exe but substituting rcv4_3831.zip into the URL didn't find anything.Please can you tell me where to download the necessary file to upgrade from 4.01 to 4.2?Thanks

Flybe used to be Jersey European Airways, and has retained the jersey callsign. I suppose the airlines list ought to be updated with the new name, but it wouldn't affect the callsign.