ATC Neglected

J

jinx

charter member past
Hello.

I find that many developers neglect to properly prepare the ATC entries in the aircraft cfg file that control how ATC calls you. Laziness? Ignorance? A belief that it is not important? I do not know what causes this neglect.
They are simple to make, and it is very often that I change those neglected entries or add to them so that ATC calls my aircraft with something better than "Ms700 is type". Something like "Supermarine (serial no) is type Spitfire". One has to look at what is painted on the aircraft as registration or serial and one has to add /change/modify entries in the [General} section, usually at the end.

I correct such entries all the time and I even have a special excel workbook where I have entered various items that help me, started originally from a John Woodward file and added to over the years.

One case in point, that is recent in fs9 is that file with 35 or so repaints of the DH80 Puss Moth. The file is ford-africa_dh80.zip at flightsim.com.
All it took to correct all 35 a/c entries was to type one line in General. And that was this:

[General]
atc_type=DEHAVILLAND

I changed the line that is in in bold red. It was De Havilland before, and ATC did not work ok---there must be no space between the two words.
Now that is not so difficult to do, but every few developers or repainters go to the trouble of seeing how ATC calls the plane.
It is a great pity.

The problem has been around for years with most recent MS sims after FS2002.
 
Even without adding third party ATC voice mods, there's actually a rather big number of names recognized by FS. If you d/l and install the ATC Voicepack SDK, it includes lists of types, airlines, and models that have been installed by default.

Link
 
I get kind of anal with ATC function too. Even if most of my flying these days is online.
 
Thanks,

I downloaded the SDK and that has some very useful information too in its rtf file.
:salute:
 
A tool I've found useful for making those sorts of changes in aircraft.cfg is Martin Gossman's Ai-Aircraft Editor. As well as stuff like the ATC info you can do bulk changes of things like the UI Manufacturer, UI Type etc; it always annoyed me that companies like Alphasim would put themselves in as UI manufacturer, but was a pain to laboriously change each one.
 
I forgot to mention that the Addon I cited as an example is a wonderful collection of repaints of the DH80 and and anyone who does not have it is missing out on something nice. I strongly advise all who fly in fs9 to get it.
I used that as an example, as I had installed it an hour or so before I started the post and it came to hand easily. Thousands of other addons could be cited as examples, and many have worse oversights.

Nick
 
Speaking for myself as someone who splashes a bit of paint now and again, and guilty of the charge. What can I say ? I like too paint and couldn't care less for the paperwork. I give my paints away for free and include the basic entries too get the repaint showing in sim. If the lack of ATC is a problem then feel free to ignore my offerings, or be willing too spend a few minutes tweaking the aircraft config entries too your own particular tastes.


Steve
 
I always include correct airline callsigns, parking types and parking codes in my repaints.
 
I can understand the frustration, considering that I use ATC quite a bit (why, I have no idea. . .it's not very good) and wonder why the controller doesn't recognize my airplane. In my case. . .it's ignorance, pure and simple. I just never took the time to understand the config file and how to make it correctly interact with ATC. In the case of developers, both freeware and payware...I have often heard them say that they rarely get to fly for fun anymore because they're always working on the next model and when they are flying it's only to check out the progress of their latest updates and corrections. . .they really aren't concerned with ATC. Looking at folks who do repaints, like SteveB says. . .most are done for free for others to enjoy and making sure that each skin has the proper config information so it shows in the sim is the primary concern.

There are more than a few simmers who find the basic ATC in both FS9 and FSX pretty poor really and so they either try to find other ATC addon programs or just put up with what the default ATC gives them. The frustration level is pretty high anyway and so the fact that the controller doesn't say my "type" becomes almost secondary to why the controller insists on getting me to "please expedite your decent to 5000", when I was 20,000 30 seconds ago and I'm in a C-5 Galaxy.
 
The ATC entries are one of the first things I check for and anytime a developer lets me preview or beta test for them I always make it work right on my copy, test it, and then give them the info on how to fix it along with examples of why they would want to do it. So far they all seem to appreciate the feedback and I smile when I find my changes incorporated in the released product. It's really quite simple to get it right. And of course my repaints get the full treatment. I may not get the right textures in the right package (M3B_CEAM for example, twice) but the right ATC bits get in there. :icon_lol:
:ernae:
 
fsafranek said:
The ATC entries are one of the first things I check for and anytime a developer lets me preview or beta test for them I always make it work right on my copy, test it, and then give them the info on how to fix it along with examples of why they would want to do it. So far they all seem to appreciate the feedback and I smile when I find my changes incorporated in the released product. It's really quite simple to get it right. And of course my repaints get the full treatment. I may not get the right textures in the right package (M3B_CEAM for example, twice) but the right ATC bits get in there. :icon_lol:
:ernae:
Click to expand...
I guess I should just bite the bullet and see what I need to do to get all my config files up to speed. It would at least remove one of the irritations about using ATC.:salute:
 
From the various posts above, it looks as if most posting members agree that some more attention needs to be paid to the ATC entries, by all creators concerned, and that some area already taking care to make ATC sound correct--that is as correct as possible within the sim's engine and limitations.

No one likes the ridiculous ATC calls we get at times as a result of such neglicence. Same as not liking sloppy or bad repaints for me...

I am thinking of uploading a simple guide to making better ATC entries for all those who do not know how to. I am going abroad to the UK soon, but will write it when I get back after June 3rd.

Do you think it will be a good idea and useful?

SteveB, who obviously makes repaints, says he could not "care less about the paper work"...
That misses the point as without ATC we simply have a game in which to please our eyes only, neglecting our ears, and so get more removed from being closer to reality.
In that case we might as well do away with engine sounds and fly in a quiet sim where nothing is heard but the sounds coming from the room where the PC sits, and not from FS. I do not mean to offend SteveB--just making a point. I personally would correct---as a matter of long habit--- Steve B's mistakes or omissions in the cfg entries, but many would not and those fellows might call him names under their breath if they heard unsuitable ATC calls. The cat would jump many ways...He would not be there to hear them, but some epithets would not be polite.
 
Friendly retort by Garry

Hi Simmers,

Thanks Jinx for your informative post about the ATC issue. Interesting and now noted.

However, let me offer an alternative thought to this thread.

After all these years some simmers have still not got the gist of FREEWARE - Nice to have perfection from Freeware developers, and many strive to achieve that, however, demanding perfection or complaining publicly about little things that the Freeware developers may miss is biting the hand that feeds this community.

All Freeware developers that I know of, and I know quiet a few, welcome helpful support, input and critiques from the community. That helps them develop better product to share with the community in the future. But an absolute irritant is those end users who yell in bold lettering in the public media about minor things that FREEWARE Developers are failing to do to meet their perceived important needs.

I have been in the simming community since the dark ages since FS98 and I have know of many Freeware developers over the years who have got so frustrated with the demands and public critiques of the "Rivet Counters" that they have simply moved on to other hobbies and ceased their development of freeware for our community.

So a simple request on behalf of Freeware Developers - before you go to the bother of posting in a public forum a critique or suggestion about something a Freeware developer has published that you think is faulty - how about spending a tiny bit more appropriate effort - send them an e-mail or PM and let them know what you think is wrong or needs correcting - give them the opportunity to assess that and respond.

Remember Freeware Developers in many cases spend hundreds of hours, and some, lots of money and time maintaining web sites for downloads etc, providing their product to the community for FREE - They do not do it for profit or fame, none profess an expertise or assure users of perfection - but simply want to share their labours and enjoyment of the hobby with friends within the community.

Some of us Freeware developers start up their hobby and share stuff that is, in hindsight, pretty junky, but with encouragement and support from the community many mature into providing quality product for us all to enjoy - so think about supporting and appreciating the Freeware Developers efforts - we all benefit from encouragement and loose potential growth of the hobby from "public floggings"

So ends my response to this thread.
 
Garry,


You are right of course in what you say. Your points have been made before, by others. Your suggestion to email the developer first is a good idea.
My spirit was to make people aware of such deficiencies, not to criticize. The addon in question was used as an example, and its maker Edward C. Moore actually may make the correction I suggested.
I know your work well and have most of it (probably 95%--though you are difficult to catch up with with so many things out), not only this one, but other stuff also. Your repaints are always superb and many thanks.
You are meticulous with them and the end results are always top grade. The Africa DH80's testify to that.
Apologies if I upset you.

Thanks.
 
An example

The two images attached show an example that has had its ATC entries corrected.
The first image as as the download came. The 2nd one shows the ATC call, the same one (Requesting Transiltion), after I corrected the entries.
If you can live with what ATC says in the 1st image, that is fine. I for one cannot. That is why I chnaged the entries and thus got the call of the 2nd entry.

The aircraft is a Fairchild PT-19. The 2nd screenshot accurately reflects that. The other one syas "Experimental N700Ms is type Experimental"--a phrase that has nothing to do with the aircraft whatsoever.

It is such ATC mods I meant all along.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top