Improved ATC System

I don't need Nellis ATC to vector me for the FYTTR 3 departure (though that'd be cool).

What I would like to see, more or less in order of "importance" to me:

• QNH instead of QFE on non-Georgian maps (essential for any terrain above 1000 feet MSL)
  
• Support for multiple parallel runways
  
• Better AI managing / interacting with traffic on the surface
  
• Support for all existing ILS approaches
  
• Support for GPS approaches (with the upcoming GNS 430)
  
• Support for declaring an emergency to ATC and having that affect inbound non-emergency traffic
  
• Taxi clearances with pathing
  
• Smarter takeoff clearances
  
• Support for VOR/DME or just VOR navigation hardware in/near NTTR
  
• Support for mobile TACAN stations (trucks placed in the field with mission editor and/or aircraft carriers... seriously, these radios are man-portable these days)
  
• Live AWOS / ATIS information, including active runway, so ATC doesn't have to waste time repeating it
  
• Separate ground/tower channels
  

I'll probably jump into a fountain in a public park, naked, screaming "DCS ROCKS!!" (and get arrested) if they only implement HALF of that list, gospadin.

I'll probably jump into a fountain in a public park, naked, screaming "DCS ROCKS!!" (and get arrested)

Just a few points as I have seen some of the stuff they are working on, there are some major work involved in all this, just to mention a few such as all the voice recording needed, as well there is the consideration of other eras coming into play. We will have different places to land that need their own specific options and such, for example Carrier Ops.

 

ED does take a long time to do this stuff, but its a desire for making it right than rushing out something they are not going to be happy with. We just need to be more patient, I know its tough, realistic ATC is a big deal to me too.

So basicaly advanced ATC will come along with F-18C to support the new air traffic around carrier?

I suppose they could release it step by step to support each part separately though...

As I build SP missions for myself, I would at least like to be able to force formation take-offs for planes. It takes 4 minutes for a 4 ship flight to depart, which is a time at which our AF wartime alert force could scramble 72 aircraft:

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCZA2CEJNKg[/ame]

It would be ideal to have carrier ops working when the F/A-18C comes along

ideal but not necessary, at least to test the aircraft on early access. same with the F-14.

I agree with that. So much to learn with the F/A-18C before the first carrier landing. :)

Command & Control & Communication is far more involved than most people know in combat aviation.

Command & Control & Communication is far more involved than most people know in combat aviation.

^^^ THIS ^^^

I've flown in a combat enviroment and can say for fact this is a true statement. But I am also willing to wait for it to be "right" verses "right now".

Sierra

Wags said it is going to be overhauled, and it will be much better than the very basic procedures we have now, that's pretty much given.

However, do you really think, given the time and effort being put into not just merging the Caucasus map into T4 standards, but also rolling out a hugely improved visual experience - and all for free - that ED would simply renege on it's announced list of improvements?

As with all things as detailed and complex as DCS World, you just have to accept that there is a long lead time to developing, testing, and rolling out this stuff.

Ask any engineer, and he'll tell you that when you are crossing a river with an 8 lane freeway, first, build the bridge!

If ED had spent all the time they needed on ATC improvements before merging DCS World into a single entity, I can only imagine the howls of derision coming from the mob!

It's coming, but it won't be soon because, unfortunately, the developers also have a life, and like to see their families once in a while. Unless of course you'd be prepared to pay $1000 a pop for the modules and maps, that way they can employ enough staff to really throw some resources into this stuff!

Besides ATC there also exists other very important Command and Control elements in an AOR such as the Communications & Reporting Center (CRC). Here is an example of a mobile CRC that should be put in DCS because it is very applicable to this sim and it would give a very rich target for the OPFOR to attack. This asset is similar to a ground based AWACS, if not exactly the same: http://www.552acw.acc.af.mil/Library/FactSheets/Display/tabid/6889/Article/430827/control-and-reporting-center-crc.aspx

As for ATC, I'm familiar with American military and civilian ATC, but what is ATC like in Russia, or Georgia? I'm sure it's different. How would foreign military aviation work with or supersede local ATC? Who's ATC will we use? So, there are some options for how to implement ATC in the Black Sea region of the game. Done right, this could become a monster in the DCS World.

Yep, when you scrape the surface, you can really make thimgs complex if you choose to.

We already have the facility for different handling of ATC by nationality, but of course, there is far more to ATC procedures in different regions than just the chosen language.

Fundamentally though, it will be an AI system still, and as such, it could be hugely cumbersome if it was to include all the features that are possible.

What it needs to be is in-depth, but at the same time, not so complicated that it gets impractical.

I'd love to see a voice recognition aspect to radio procedures, so we can talk instead of pressing keys. That alone would add hugely to the immersion, but of course, it also brings with it more complications - just try the third party systems to see that!

I'm sure it's different. How would foreign military aviation work with or supersede local ATC? Who's ATC will we use?

We already have the facility for different handling of ATC by nationality, but of course, there is far more to ATC procedures in different regions than just the chosen language.

As long as the nation is a NATO member, there are standards. For GCI/AWACS of course, ATC comms can varify a little bit from unit to unit and base to base.

I'd also agree that (for modern use!) two different ones (one western, one russian) are a good approximation. Not quite correct but good enough.

For the WWII-scenario things get a bit more complicated.

British and US procedures are often (but not always) similar, so maybe we could get away with using the same procedures and just swapping out a few words to get the British different to the US. And then of course the German is quite a bit different.

I know we are stretching our sim comparison budget already a bit (thanks @moderators btw, for not killing this thread. I think we have a nice civil and helpful discussion here right now), but look at that older WWII sim with the russian plane name: They had the same procedures for all countries as far as I remember, just swapped the words out for different languages, even Japanese and so on. I liked it and it was immersive, even though I knew that technically half of the procedures were just wrong.

I'd be as happy as a clam if ED did only such a simple ATC, largely disregarding the differences between countries.

EDIT @NeilWillis: I'd love to have the voice thing (I think we had threads about that already), but honestly I am pretty content right now with using VoiceAttack and just saying "F1", "F2" and so on. Works well for me and is simple to set up.

Yes, I was doing the F1, F2 thing too Aginor, but it would be great to have integral voice activation, and cut out all the messing around with apps.

The more core functions we have within DCS, the more rounded and attractive it'll be to the flight sim fraternity who haven't arrived here yet.

I know we might have to wait a long time for all that stuff to show up, but with VR, I'd say the case for voice activation just got much stronger.

Sorry to drift off topic there.

The most important improvement that could be made, and the simplest would be simple vectors for an ILS/PRMG approach with hard altitude assignments. A PAR Approach would be awesome, too! All of this would require the introduction of named fixes for each airport and an approach procedure that didn't drive you into the terrain with minimum vectoring altitudes around each airport. ATC should assign heading and altitudes with updates as your aircraft gets closer to the field to steer you onto final. Runway in use most aligned with wind.

Another thing about the ATC I just remembered:

To me one of the most awesome features concerning immersion would be if we could actually hear the other planes (players and AI) talking to the ATC. It adds tons of immersion.

Right now we have a tiny bit of chatter in the air with flights reporting waypoints, but the really cool stuff would be the ATC comms.

But it would also provide an important gameplay aspect (you know I am the "gameplay first!" guy), and that is situational awareness.

If the ATC silently fails doing its job (like right now), you might not notice. But if you hear another plane getting permission for takeoff on runway 32 while you are on final for landing on runway 32 you know something is wrong and can react early.