ATC in F10 map view

Hello ED,

Sorry if this has been asked before, I could not find it.

Could you guys consider making an ATC feature in the F10 map view?

A few of the features I'd like to suggest are:

- Labels on clients/units with normal ATC info (speed, altitude, heading, name)

- Add a line/arrow on the symbols to show direction

- Use FOG OF WAR setting so only included radar installations etc. will pick up units

- Add an option in the mission editor called: ATC. Just like FAC/JTAC etc.

- Maybe add a REALISTIC (fog of war) and ARCADE (show all) option for testing purposes

- DO NOT show ground units, just airplanes (or make it optional)

- If ATC is enabled, or ATC slot is in use then STOP ingame AI ATC per coalition

- EDIT: weather info per airport

Now maybe a more difficult feature to create which would be awesome, but maybe for a later stage:

- A view from any COALITION airport TOWER, where you can look around over the airport and use SCROLL WHEEL on mouse to zoom in/out. Of course prevent that the ATC can look at ENEMY airports.

Hope to get at least an answer from you guys be it a yes or a no :thumbup:

I completely agree but why not create a Tower view that functions like a flight controller desk? Or as a Ground controller desk? Should be no more advanced than adding radar and sights to vehicles, right?

+ 1, this would make MP sessions a lot more enjoyable. Also, make sure that the ATC has access to the weather information on the airport he/she is working. That will enable dynamic weather and making METARs actually make sense.

+1 that's a great Idea.

+1 Would be a nice adition to the sim

+1

This would be an awesome feature for simulated ATC! Could bring alot of those vatsim guys over, would be fun to interact on this level with live combat missions.

And think if blueflag featured something like this, would be so immersive!

+1 for sure!

Can we also please have a JTAC soldier that is available only for the CA JTAC user? The soldier should have a radio set and the JTAC tools.

+1 great Idea.

Does ED ever reply on any suggestions as to if they think it is a good idea?

Would be great to get some response.

Not expecting to hear when it will be ready, just if they think it is doable and will be implemented some day or not.

Thanks!

Slightly necroing, but at the risk of multiple posting. I'd love to see these features in game also. Perhaps even as part of CA. I used LotATC for years, but it's inaccessible to most and requires some setup. Fog of war needs tuning, its overly revealing for using as an ABM or JTAC or ATC, eg missiles.

In terms of difficulty, technically what you ask is not even too hard, its another filter layer of what F10 shows, which is a little less than it does now and some nice labels in an ATC style.

Cost to develop, I can't say, it's not like many wishlist items, its almost a UI redesign and a togglable filter. Chance of it bringing new players into that element of the sim and getting some CA purchases? Definitely.

Worth a shot Mr Wagner!

Great suggestion! I can only support the idea and hope ED would approve :thumbup:

Thanks Dutch!

ATC that stands for Air Traffic Control, wouldn't have anything else than a other traffic radas information available.

The military radars (SAM, EW etc) should still be inaccessible for them and only be available in the networked GCI centers or the SAM networks itself that are linked together.

This is just something that should be done, because it should be so that one player can't see unrealistic total radar picture but only the networked ones. And this would make it so that different players would need to work together while operating either individual sites or then networked batteries.

If playing with the AI, the AI should have a delayed information, refresh rates changed to reflect the communication delays as the old information and all that.

Those who want to play a Air Traffic Controller, would nicely be located to airfield tower where they have the visibility out from tower (and can use binoculars even) as all the charts and other tools to traffic the air from approaching and taking aircrafts.

ATC that stands for Air Traffic Control, wouldn't have anything else than a other traffic radas information available.

 

The military radars (SAM, EW etc) should still be inaccessible for them and only be available in the networked GCI centers or the SAM networks itself that are linked together.

 

This is just something that should be done, because it should be so that one player can't see unrealistic total radar picture but only the networked ones. And this would make it so that different players would need to work together while operating either individual sites or then networked batteries.

 

If playing with the AI, the AI should have a delayed information, refresh rates changed to reflect the communication delays as the old information and all that.

 

Those who want to play a Air Traffic Controller, would nicely be located to airfield tower where they have the visibility out from tower (and can use binoculars even) as all the charts and other tools to traffic the air from approaching and taking aircrafts.

Military airfields' ATC might have access to networked radars.

Plus, if we were to actually simulate an ATC, they usually use SSR-receivers nowadays instead of Primary radar data... and before that can work out we would need an SSR/IFF system working in each module. And currently those systems do nothing.

Apart from that I feel the only real downside of LotATC is that you can't see aircraft on the ground (nor airfield layouts, only the runway), which makes playing as an actual ATC (not GCI) difficult as you cant really perform the function of a Tower very well (assuming said airfield doesn't have a ground controlle)

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

ATC would be separated from the military radar network that is prioritize for military strategics and tactics. All that would as well add non-important data to airfield traffic controllers that task is just that.

What we need is a multiple different command centers, intelligence centers and defence network centers as direct operators to flights etc.

Even such systems like AWACS are manned by multiple operators and they don't get info from everything and need to perform all kind queries when asked upon what is where.

Lots of information is delivered just by over secure line without data transmissions between individual networked batteries and radar networks.

What we would need is at least three different kind "desk jobs" like ATC in airfield that just control traffic in the airport.

A field operators that work in road bases with simple radios, radar etc.

Fleet radar operator, and as well fleet command centers at flagships.

Then have a field command centers as well individual EWR commands and own SAM site commands.

Meaning we could have a dozen of seats in multiplayer just to let people play radar operators communicating to each others, to pilots and as well to field commanders with ground units in command.

We don't have any delays, lags, ghosts, transponders malfunctions, codes sharing, mission lists etc that would make the whole thing interesting.

Having a simple radar screens, a marker, papers etc would be needed to get simple things going.

And so many ways the F10 map is like a cheating even with a fog of war enabled as it shows the map as well its getting all direct information while it shouldn't get.

It would actually be fun to really get a command post operational in field, select the location to "Jump in" and get access to information that networked battery can see.

Go to be a ATC and get the players land and take off as rosters say and keep rearming etc in control. Even if required ground some pilots from that airfield so they need to go to an another airfield if behaving badly near field.

Or be a mission center where planning the waypoints and drawing them on map and have the information where different flights are suppose to be in given time and deliver that information to GCI and AWACS on request.

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

+1

+1

Great suggestion

This is such a rational and necessary update for the sake of fluid gameplay and realism that it becomes hard to figure out why it wasn't already implemented.

+1 !!!

+1

Oops, unfinished post from yesterday, will do it asap.

Does ED ever reply on any suggestions as to if they think it is a good idea?

Would be great to get some response.

 

Not expecting to hear when it will be ready, just if they think it is doable and will be implemented some day or not.

 

Thanks!

Usually not, no need to, I think the Mission Editor wish for 2D Icons and other stuff is being fulfilled as we speak, but others had those ideas not just me, I do remember talking about them myself like 2-3 years back.

ATC that stands for Air Traffic Control, wouldn't have anything else than a other traffic radas information available.

 

The military radars (SAM, EW etc) should still be inaccessible for them and only be available in the networked GCI centers or the SAM networks itself that are linked together.

 

This is just something that should be done, because it should be so that one player can't see unrealistic total radar picture but only the networked ones. And this would make it so that different players would need to work together while operating either individual sites or then networked batteries.

 

If playing with the AI, the AI should have a delayed information, refresh rates changed to reflect the communication delays as the old information and all that.

 

Those who want to play a Air Traffic Controller, would nicely be located to airfield tower where they have the visibility out from tower (and can use binoculars even) as all the charts and other tools to traffic the air from approaching and taking aircrafts.

Have to say that as time goes on, I’d like to see more accurate ATC.

Just being reading about Pilot2atc, which is a paid for 3rd party solution compatible with fsx and xplane.

With the probable complexity, would strike me as a very interesting paid for module for DCS.

Have to say that as time goes on, I’d like to see more accurate ATC.

Just being reading about Pilot2atc, which is a paid for 3rd party solution compatible with fsx and xplane.

With the probable complexity, would strike me as a very interesting paid for module for DCS.

Did you take a look at LotATC ?

I have LotATC, but unfortunately it does not work flawlessly and can be a little difficult for non-experienced players.

My suggestion would make for many more people to be able to do ATC, no extra programs needed, and would possibly get more people to be interested in doing ATC.

And if this is a standard option on ANY server, we immediately get the chance to expand the immersion on any server.

And ED could put the 'improved ATC' (which I've seen mentioned in several posts over the past 5 years) on hold for a bit, since we get this new immersive option with the suggested ATC Module, I would choose HUMAN ATC over AI ATC anytime.

Would Eagle Dynamics be more interested if we would pay for this feature as a separate module?

Well I'm willing to pay, let's say 14,99 US Dollars for an ATC module, if at least the features I suggested are in there.

I think you guys at ED, with all your experience and knowledge in coding, would maybe get this ATC module out in a few weeks work. I am NOT saying you guys should have it out in two more weeks from today, just saying some money could be made for ED and in return you can make a lot of customers happy and it would possibly take not too much time for ED to develop.

I don't know if you have internships at ED, maybe get a group of young developers to start this project?

And it would be sooooooo nice if a representative of ED would at least acknowledge this request, by saying we see it and we will or we will not think about it, just a simple message would be extremely nice.... Right now it's just an endless waiting game and the only player in this game seems to be me hahaha.

I appreciate ANY answer from ED or ED representatives!

Put me up for one of those awesome ATC modules! I even buy two :D

to put an adacted ATC mean that there must be AI or human flight controllers? that there must also be a SAR system that must work properly AI or human. and that atc communication requires a minimum of training because in this simulator not all drivers are but there are also non-pilot civilians. I must also consider that we are in MILITARY so military traffic and different from civilian military airports are also different from the civil ones changes the lighting system and lights. I then also have to consider that both civil and military traffic can be mixed.