ATC in DCS. Is that even worked on?

DCS has terrible ATC. We all know that. My question is: Is that even being worked on?

I have seen the news about new ATC for the carriers but nothing about ATC in general. And as some recent little scandals (GPS?) have revealed our beloved ED is choosing their wording very carefully. That draws me to a conclusion that general ATC might actually by not worked on ATM.

Seriously. Unless DCS is coded in some incredibly complex programming language ATC could be easily way way improved.

As it stands ATC does not aknowledge they have received a transmission if the script is not ready for the next step making you guess if your radio worked or not (requesting landing)

You can't declare an emergency. You might be on fire and not get clearance for landing.

It does not matter if you have clearance for anything or not. The ATC will just stay quiet.

It does not matter if you are at pattern alt or not.

Those are just some super simple examples, that from the coding stand point are just a bunch of "if" or "while" statements and few new recordings of voice over. Things like that are being modded in on servers. So why has the ATC not changed in years?

It is being worked on. The new version will be for the carriers first then land.

recent little scandals (GPS?)

GPS scandals? See my sig.

As for the ATC though, yeah, it's pretty horrible. Hoping to see a complete rework myself too.

Yes there is a complete overhaul of the entire ATC system in development for quite some time already. Expect release soon™.

GPS scandals? See my sig.

 

As for the ATC though, yeah, it's pretty horrible. Hoping to see a complete rework myself too.

Thanks for clarification :) It wasn't really my point. I was rather referring to the fact that any guessing like (ED said "We are working on ATC for carriers" ergo they must be overhauling ATC) should not take place. As when the whole argument about NS exploded people started taking every statement ever said apart.

Yes there is a complete overhaul of the entire ATC system in development for quite some time already. Expect release soon™.

Apparently there are no shortage of difficulties being encountered:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3603548&postcount=1321

Apparently there are no shortage of difficulties being encountered:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3603548&postcount=1321

Yes, otherwise it would have been released a long time ago, given how long this new ATC system is beeing in development already.

Wags also mentioned some problems with the new ATC system in the past, here for example:

2- Given that we are in the process of coding, a rather annoying error entered the code base yesterday. During the stream, you will see error warning windows pop up from time to time. These are due to work on the new ATC system. Keep calm and carry on.

Apparently there are no shortage of difficulties being encountered:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3603548&postcount=1321

Hey thanks for that one, I haven't seen it before.

Playing devils advocate....

I don't see any value of a robust ATC system in a military combat sim. A big portion of us fly online. Servers often provide voice ATC or have a mandatory frequency setup for traffic. And 99% of missions, campaigns and online servers are in day VFR conditions.

Majority of talking is done with the air weapons controller (AWACS), others in your coalition and those in your flight group.

I see much more value in beefing up the in game communication system vs. a specific portion of it (ATC).

We need more callsigns, more NATO brevity, and IMO the best thing that could be ultimately integrated is voice recognition. Being able to seamlessly request status, BRAs, picture, bogey dope etc via voice would be alot more immersive in a combat sim over a system that clears you to land. Just me though.

Playing devils advocate....

 

I don't see any value of a robust ATC system in a military combat sim. A big portion of us fly online. Servers often provide voice ATC or have a mandatory frequency setup for traffic. And 99% of missions, campaigns and online servers are in day VFR conditions.

 

Majority of talking is done with the air weapons controller (AWACS), others in your coalition and those in your flight group.

 

I see much more value in beefing up the in game communication system vs. a specific portion of it (ATC).

 

We need more callsigns, more NATO brevity, and IMO the best thing that could be ultimately integrated is voice recognition. Being able to seamlessly request status, BRAs, picture, bogey dope etc via voice would be alot more immersive in a combat sim over a system that clears you to land. Just me though.

I guess you have never played a certain F-16 centric flight sim that has an outstanding ATC system, that does a great job in managing the in and outbound traffic of an airbase by sending aircraft into holding patterns, making intelligent use of multiple runways (if available) and so on. It does that by telling the pilots EXACTLY how to fly from the very beginning, through the entire holding pattern to the ground.

This is a totally different experience to the lame ATC we have in DCS and such a capable ATC would be a huge benefit for DCS as well.

Playing devils advocate....

 

I don't see any value of a robust ATC system in a military combat sim. A big portion of us fly online.

More fly off-line or in single player than do in multi. That is why it has value. You need to look beyond your own personal preferences. Seems most that just play mp think that is what EVERYONE else does as well. A quick look at the number of players online easily proves that is not the case. If that was the bulk of DCS players, ED woulda folded years ago.

I guess you have never played a certain F-16 centric flight sim

Fair guess... I certainly have not. From what I have seen over the years, It lacks realism in alot of departments and far too dated in comparison. Save that for another discussion though.

I'm all for adding features, I still struggle to see the value. Ill touch on one point you mentioned as an example.

Holding patterns

Required when an airfield/airport is over capacity. A standard civil single runway airport in the civil world in IFR conditions can land about 22-32 aircraft per hour. Military arrival rates are much higher (typically arrive 2 or 3 in the same period one would arrive in the civil world) I don't see any campaign, missions where that many aircraft are coming and going including the multiplayer servers and doubt that has anything to do with the in game ATC system. I personally don't feel like simulating something that makes real world pilots cringe because its "cool" and because we can.

Id be happier getting that life saving BRA from AWACS, without having to take my hands off my HOTAS and pull my attention from the guy trying to shoot me to work the comm menus. That is much more of immersion killer (and has cost me more then a few engagements), then a ATC system in a combat environment. Again... perhaps its just me.

I guess you have never played a certain F-16 centric flight sim that has an outstanding ATC system, that does a great job in managing the in and outbound traffic of an airbase by sending aircraft into holding patterns, making intelligent use of multiple runways (if available) and so on. It does that by telling the pilots EXACTLY how to fly from the very beginning, through the entire holding pattern to the ground.

This is a totally different experience to the lame ATC we have in DCS and such a capable ATC would be a huge benefit for DCS as well.

I couldn't agree more. I never played that certain f16 sim in the long run(because of no VR), but the couple of times I tried it the ATC has blew me away. In the contrast to my yesterdays online experience:

I got inbound.

Visual - contact tower

I request landing and nothing happens until I am on my final when I get "Landing denied" followed by immediate permission for Landing. While this was happening a guy on the ground got a denied permission to take off, followed a permission to take off. We almost collided. the ATC just does not work.

That certain F16 sim allows you even to do autonomus approach but you have to respect the arrival order ( you can land anyway and get shouted by tower ) and declare emergency if you have damage.

A new ATC with Approach , Ground, Departure and Tower frequencies per airport would be awesome, at least for hardcore players.

That certain F16 sim allows you even to do autonomus approach but you have to respect the arrival order ( you can land anyway and get shouted by tower ) and declare emergency if you have damage.

 

A new ATC with Approach , Ground, Departure and Tower frequencies per airport would be awesome, at least for hardcore players.

Yeah! I was especially impressed by being reprimanded and the plausibility of declaring emergency. Made it feel very alive.

Fair guess... I certainly have not. From what I have seen over the years, It lacks realism in alot of departments and far too dated in comparison. Save that for another discussion though.

 

I'm all for adding features, I still struggle to see the value. Ill touch on one point you mentioned as an example.

 

Holding patterns

 

Required when an airfield/airport is over capacity. A standard civil single runway airport in the civil world in IFR conditions can land about 22-32 aircraft per hour. Military arrival rates are much higher (typically arrive 2 or 3 in the same period one would arrive in the civil world) I don't see any campaign, missions where that many aircraft are coming and going including the multiplayer servers and doubt that has anything to do with the in game ATC system. I personally don't feel like simulating something that makes real world pilots cringe because its "cool" and because we can.

That actually happens a lot, especially at the beginning of an air campaign when large strike packages / alpha strikes are beeing carried out. When all the aircraft return to base after completing their mission an airfield (or carrier) has to handle all the aircraft that come back at the same time.

In regard to DCS, this is indeed not something that happens much on a public server, but it's actually very common in singleplayer and coop multiplayer missions.

It also happens a lot in the dynamic campaign of that F-16 sim, because it actually simulates such strike packages as well as all kind of other military air traffic during the war (e.g. transport aircraft going in and out of airbases). If DCS gets such a campaign in the future it will absulutly need to have a powerful ATC.

Fair guess... I certainly have not. From what I have seen over the years, It lacks realism in alot of departments and far too dated in comparison. Save that for another discussion though.

 

I'm all for adding features, I still struggle to see the value. Ill touch on one point you mentioned as an example.

 

Holding patterns

 

Required when an airfield/airport is over capacity. A standard civil single runway airport in the civil world in IFR conditions can land about 22-32 aircraft per hour. Military arrival rates are much higher (typically arrive 2 or 3 in the same period one would arrive in the civil world) I don't see any campaign, missions where that many aircraft are coming and going including the multiplayer servers and doubt that has anything to do with the in game ATC system. I personally don't feel like simulating something that makes real world pilots cringe because its "cool" and because we can.

 

Id be happier getting that life saving BRA from AWACS, without having to take my hands off my HOTAS and pull my attention from the guy trying to shoot me to work the comm menus. That is much more of immersion killer (and has cost me more then a few engagements), then a ATC system in a combat environment. Again... perhaps its just me.

You should try "Aerobatics Online" server. For some reasons, you always have a 6-12 jets flying over the runway(s) at all kind of altitude, speed, formation, etc.

Playing devils advocate....

 

I don't see any value of a robust ATC system in a military combat sim. A big portion of us fly online. .

By "us" you mean you and people you know?

Online is a niche within niche. If I was ED, having seen the online numbers, I'd put little to no resources into online at all, because it makes very little sense to cater to a tiny group of people in what is already a small market.

ATC is needed or not, I impartial about it. I'd rather have better JTAC etc.. combat related support. There are other games which are more suitable for flying patterns because that is all they do. DCS is a combat simulator.

I don't see any value of a robust ATC system in a military combat sim. A big portion of us fly online.

A reasonable portion of the people posting here may fly online, but I suspect the total number using MP is tiny in overall DCS user terms!

ATC, lets face it... What Eagle dynamics are mostly interested in is making money and that is via planes/terrain and such.

ATC i would say have a somewhat lower priority, especially the ATC we have today.

ALso keep in mind that they want to implement better AI for everything in the game .. so it dont make much scence to improve the current "old" atc if they are going to implement AI and make a new AI system for planes ect ect.

Just saying sometimes it might be better to start over and do things different.. the current atc system is very basic, i doubt people are gona miss it ;-)

in my experience people dont really use the atc maybe becourse it is kind of bad, example in the f18c you cant even talk to atc before you engine is started and kind of stupid to ask the tower for permition to startup when engines are running ;-) and even if you ask takeoff permition then you hear nothing until you typical taxi onto the runway.. Then what is the point of an ATC if they cant ask you to hold short and wait for landing plane, or other things. In multiplayer people just mimic their own atc and over the radio state their intentions and if nobody say something then ok ready for takeoff or landing kind of thing .

ATC is a crusial part to a modern sim in my opinion. I think it greatly increases the immersion that can be had. I have gotten into some civil sims, and as far as VFR flight plans, DCS in it's current state is better than most civil sims. The update to ATC could really help people practice interaction with a tower.

I

As a student pilot in real life I think the best overall sim training experience cones from DCS. Tge flight models feel more real, the airfields feel more alive, and there is a functional VFR ATC. So I love the Yak-52 in single player. Thus addition is very welcomed from me!

I would love to see some greatly improved ATC in the future, as I for myself still do not fly MP but only single (usual time constraints because of Job / House / Wife / little Girl / Dog / etc... :music_whistling: ).

I`m curious why it is so hard to get some good working, real as it gets, ATC into modern simulators? For civil flying, I sometimes use tis other Simulator starting with X-..... Even there, ATC is really basic and guite Shite. Developer promised to work on it, making it more true to life in the future.

Is it really this hard to do, or do developers just assume that everybody is flying MP and can use sam sort of VATSIM, ICAO or something similar?

I wonder if it is possible to create a modded ATC , I mean , all the ATC comms are guided by the ATC.lua file.

I've tried to give it a shot , change something here and there to:

-create Approach , Tower , Ground menu inside ATC calls (all on the same frequency)

-eliminate airport list ( but is bad for FC3 planes )

I thought about using the actual ATC system so you can:

- call Ground for Startup

- call Tower to taxi

- call Tower to take off

- call Approach for approach

- call Tower to request landing

I think it's possible to make it but my understanding in LUA dynamics are low...