TOWER! XX WISHLIST

[xendra]

CTRL+right click mouse button on ADIRS to insert static cameras at conflictive points considered by user.

Thanks in advance!

[DeltaVII]

Another wish:
Compile the different wishlists into one single list that by our replies (via quote) we can vote either in favor or against for each single item you think you can include in XX... 😉

[crbascott]

2 hours ago, DeltaVII said:

Another wish:
Compile the different wishlists into one single list that by our replies (via quote) we can vote either in favor or against for each single item you think you can include in XX... 😉

With Vics's original post saying "we will not acknowledge or confirm any wishes" and "some of the ideas will make the next version some of them are not", I think this is one wishlist item that won't make the cut. 😃 Also, out-of-the-box this forum only allows for 20 items in a poll and in my opinion there are way over 20 items worth voting for.

We did this on the Discord server (actually thumbs up/down) and what we found is very similar to what we've seen in polls/voting here on the forum. The turnout is relatively small and open-access voting leads to non-scientific results that are not necessarily representative of the customer base. 

[Ripskin]

I would like some variety to the play.  This may be asking for a mix up of some ATC / Tower play but to a degree if the level of depth you want to play is a toggle or a selectable option it opens up a lot of fun IMO. 

I would like planes to arrive on "realistic" way points based on the selected runways and source airport location.  This way when we have planes in the air we actually have some "controlling".  Now we could either have to control them down as we sort of do now or we could let the game do it transferring them to us once on approach.  However they would be on our scope and we would have to be mindful of them.  

Same with departures.  We have a way point to get them to.  Depending on operations we manage them to a certain altitude / way point direction then hand them off.  They would remain on our scope as an obsticale until clear.  I've always wanted a bit more control of the flights in approach and departure.  Such as setting altitude / speed so a fast jet coming in can slow down further giving a bit more time for a smaller plane to land and clear.  We can reduce to a few options or ask that they fly minimums etc...

 

I also would like some pre flight setup.  Going back to old Rainbow 6 style games:  In pre match we could set up way points and routes for our team to follow.  Instead of the wild west of random pathing I would like to set up my taxiway's. Click a terminal and set exit points on a runway for it or disable a runway altogether to simulate a closure. 

 

I also wouldn't mind some variable weather to deal with that has an actual impact. May be asking for too much on the level of impact but if we massive cell comes through we should have to divert or put planes in holding patterns which would require real holding patters and altitude adjustments. I think that would really open up the variety. 

[DeltaVII]

I have another idea that affects the schedule file:

MARKERS FOR LIVERY AND CARGO
Many airlines have their cargo divisions operating without a seperate IATA/ICAO code and callsign, but under their main company's code and flight number. Emirates and Cathay Pacific are two examples I can think of. I think the new schedule format needs a cargo flag (a simple 0/1 switch) to distinguish between those jets going to the cargo ramps and those transporting pax.
Another extension to the schedule could be an ID to the livery used for an aircraft. One example is that Alaska Airlines still has aircraft with Virgin America livery flying around while using an Alaska Airlines flight number, and flights under American callsign in US Airways livery was for some time worth a good laugh with "in disguise" comments by ATCs. Another use could be the introduction of a new livery (or even a special livery, like this Eurowings Europa-Park livery) that not every aircraft in the company on the same model is flying with (yet). This would even allow for sub-charter scenarios. (I once worked as an IT guy for a charter airline that used to operate its own aircraft with its own company livery under the lessee's callsign and flight number, that's where my affection for aviation comes from.) I am aware we already have the disguising option using the codesharing entry, but replacing it with a livery ID would allow for more options.

[Sooomle]

In prioritized order, I would like the see the following in the next version:

1. Landing planes no longer exiting runways into taxiways with aircraft waiting for runway crossing.
2. Fixed issues with airplanes stuck at terminals. Occasionally planes get stuck into terminal buildings, and other planes, while trying to taxi away from terminal.
3. Have planes exit runway to left/right depending on the location of their arrival terminal.
4. Ability to "release" the command bar from the game window like ADIRS, DBRITE and Strip windows, so you can get a clean "out of the window" view on one monitor, while keeping everything else on other monitors.
5. Upon "release" as mentioned above, the command "bar" gets a larger UI with more, and bigger buttons suitable for touch screen usage, with ALL commands accessible.
6. Ability to "fix" view(s) spread onto multiple monitors, so as to mimic a real tower. Preferably multiple hi resolution monitors/projectors (4K+). This could possibly be solved by using a secondary computer for the views, while the primary computer acts as "binoculars".
7. Possibility of specifying preferred taxi lane for departures leaving the terminal area. Typically, arrivals and departures both taxi along the path closest to the terminal, unless told otherwise. When you'r not using speech recognition, it results in a lot of unnecessary mouse clicks in the ADIRS to keep the planes apart, which that takes to much time.

 

 

Edited October 14, 2019 by Sooomle
Spelling...

[Salad]

Hi All,

Something else that comes to mind is delays (optional). This would mean that the same schedule would not play out the same over and over.

There could also be a myriad of reasons for being delayed at the gate; wrong food trolley delivered, waiting on late passenger, flight attendant's make up smudged etc.

Arrivals could also be delayed, although they probably wouldn't need a reason.

Graham

[blacklabelbraai]

11 hours ago, Salad said:

flight attendant's make up smudged

😂😂

That's a thing???

[DeltaVII]

13 hours ago, Salad said:

There could also be a myriad of reasons for being delayed at the gate; wrong food trolley delivered, waiting on late passenger, flight attendant's make up smudged etc.

Reasons are not necessary to be given. The biggest factor, though, is still the weather. So, the easiest thing to produce delays is closing virtual routes or stopping releases to a certain region (like the American east coast from North Carolina to Florida due to a severe hurricane or something).

Which leads me to another two possible features:

METARs
In short: weather reports that the Tower (or virtual tower supervisor) has to react to, like performing a runway change etc., and influences the spacing of inbound and outbound flights from a certain point.

INFORMATIONs
When virtual pilots call Ground, they should provide which ATIS they have ("Ground, Jetblue 1415 ready for taxi at DA with information K"). If ATIS has moved on or the pilot didn't include ATIS information into his call, Ground has to tell them ("Jetblue 1415, information is L, taxi right onto A, hold short of J"). This might be something to produce a delay, so that the pilots can listen to ATIS again and punch it into the computer ("Ground, Jetblue 1415 is not ready", followed by "Ground, Jetblue 1415 ready for departure") - and only then they can be handed over to the Tower.

[blacklabelbraai]

39 minutes ago, DeltaVII said:

METARs

 

39 minutes ago, DeltaVII said:

INFORMATIONs

I like both of those!

[crbascott]

3 hours ago, DeltaVII said:

INFORMATIONs
When virtual pilots call Ground, they should provide which ATIS they have ("Ground, Jetblue 1415 ready for taxi at DA with information K"). If ATIS has moved on or the pilot didn't include ATIS information into his call, Ground has to tell them ("Jetblue 1415, information is L, taxi right onto A, hold short of J"). This might be something to produce a delay, so that the pilots can listen to ATIS again and punch it into the computer ("Ground, Jetblue 1415 is not ready", followed by "Ground, Jetblue 1415 ready for departure") - and only then they can be handed over to the Tower.

Actually, I believe the ATIS is provided as part of the startup process with clearance/delivery and prior to any actually plane movement. This could potentially cause a delay if the pilot doesn't have the current ATIS but, again, it would be before pushback or taxi has taken place.  

[DeltaVII]

Just now, crbascott said:

Actually, I believe the ATIS is provided as part of the startup process with clearance/delivery and prior to any actually plane movement. This could potentially cause a delay if the pilot doesn't have the current ATIS but, again, it would be before pushback or taxi has taken place.  

Often enough it is not done. But I have also heard otherwise. Especially after ATIS changed recently. Here, for example, a Delta Connection pilot announces with his taxi request that he has X-Ray, and it's a pretty new (post-KS) audio.

And I found this in section 2-9-2, letter c, in FAA Order JO 7110.65:

Quote

c. Controllers must ensure that pilots receive the most current pertinent information by taking the following actions, as applicable:

1. When a pilot does not state the appropriate ATIS code on initial contact, ask the pilot to confirm receipt of the current ATIS information.

And directed at pilots the FAA's Aeronautical Information Manual states in chapter 4, section 4-2-3, number 3:

Quote

If radio reception is reasonably assured, inclusion of your request, your position or altitude, and the phrase “(ATIS) Information Charlie received” in the initial contact helps decrease radio frequency congestion.

 

[crbascott]

2 hours ago, DeltaVII said:

Often enough it is not done. But I have also heard otherwise. Especially after ATIS changed recently. Here, for example, a Delta Connection pilot announces with his taxi request that he has X-Ray, and it's a pretty new (post-KS) audio.

And I found this in section 2-9-2, letter c, in FAA Order JO 7110.65:

And directed at pilots the FAA's Aeronautical Information Manual states in chapter 4, section 4-2-3, number 3:

 

Good points Sounds like initial contact is the main requirement on when it should happen.

I guess the main part of your scenario I am struggling with is why the ATC would even move them. It would seem that this could get messy if other pilots called in similarly. I've most often heard something like ATC say "Lima is current, advise when you get Lima" and the pilot indicates they'll "get Lima" and responds back when they do. But the ATC has either not moved them or gone ahead and given taxi instructions. Unless the change in the ATIS is significant (i.e., runway change), is it really even necessary to hold things up?  

To be honest, I've heard the mismatched ATIS scenario more on arrival/approach. In this case, the pilot continues to proceed inbound and gets the specified ATIS. I'll listen to some more clearance/ground to make sure I'm not talking out of my you know what. 

[DeltaVII]

5 hours ago, crbascott said:

I guess the main part of your scenario I am struggling with is why the ATC would even move them.

Judging by what I've heard from JFK, it depends on the wait times. If the field is packed, there's more than enough time for them during taxi to pick up the new ATIS and feed the computer. If not, they either stay in the alleyway or Ground moves them out on a longer route with an optional holding point. Having them wait in the alleyway can be problematic when they block gate access for inbound traffic, so that the arrival aircraft has to wait and blocks the taxiway or has to be parked at a remote site.

I don't think we will have the option in Tower XX to send an aircraft in the alleyway back to the stand when their route is closed or something, so we will definitely have to move that plane, and it should not be a problem to put it somewhere so it can pick up ATIS in the process.

... and I got new ideas for Tower XX standing in the shower this morning:

CORRECTION
The word "correction" is used when an ATC makes a mistake in the transmission and it's part of the official phraseology (this is a nice EUROCONTROL tool to look it up). This would be handy for when we or the speech engine messes up, it can either become part of the transmission or just delete the last portion of it. Examples:
"Jetblue 4890 - correction: Delta 4890, hold short of taxiway K" or "Jetblue 4890" -> "Delta 4890, hold short of taxiway K".
"Delta 4890, turn right onto taxiway K, cross runway 31R - correction: cross runway 31L, contact tower" or "Delta 4890, turn right onto taxiway K, cross runway 31R" -> "Delta 4890, turn right onto taxiway K, cross runway 31L, contact tower"

MONITOR TOWER
Instead of contacting Tower (which means that the pilot actively calls Tower after the handoff from Ground), an aircraft can switch to the tower frequency and just listen to be called.
(While we're at it: this would/could require the ATIS information to be confirmed prior to switching, already on ground frequency. Failing to do so -- eventually by a simple exchange like "Delta 4890, verify you have information G" - "Affirm, Delta 4890" -- might result in a loss of points for the ATC in an advanced scoring system that resembles the one in TRACON.)

LEGACY MODE
Let's face it, Tower XX will be more accurate, but also more complex. So, how about an easier "legacy mode" that pretty much works like Tower 3D for beginners (this would leave out things like verifying ATIS) and the improved regular mode for aficionados like us?

[crbascott]

1 hour ago, DeltaVII said:

MONITOR TOWER
Instead of contacting Tower (which means that the pilot actively calls Tower after the handoff from Ground), an aircraft can switch to the tower frequency and just listen to be called.

This is number #28 on the Discord wishlist. 👍 Don't really hear any mention of ATIS at this point, but FT will obviously figure out was is doable/feasible/realistic.

[Ripskin]

I wouldn't mind not having to segment hours of the day out in the schedule in order to have room for arrivals to show up.

[Gunu]

Firstly I would like to highlight that this wish list commencement has not been mentioned on Steam at all, so all the users on Steam that don't know about this forum will be missed out!

I only stumbled upon this topic when looking for a solution to an airport problem.

My wishlist in no order of preference.

1, No bugs on final release.
2, No multiple penalty for same single event.
3, A sound played when an alert for a collision is shown (for 2 screen users busy lookimg at 2nd screen)
4, Remove red light from top of tail on airliners, should only be on GA aircraft
5, Ability to be able to rotate ADIRS to fit screen.
6, Option to remove road traffic.
7, The ability to narrow down gate assignment for landing a/c, to aid taxi route planning.
8, Large aircraft like A380 not being parked down alleyway, possibly size gates to avoid this.
9, Ability to taxi an aircraft from runway, even though its gate is not free, possibly to a holding point, instead of blocking the runway exit.
10, Once an aircraft is no longer visible to the eye, camera not to turn and focus on it when selected
11, Option to assign another key/joystick button for push to talk.
12, Better core code optimisation for cpu and graphics chips.
13, Random delays capability instead of fixed timetables that can become predictable with use.
14, Aircraft towed off gate to go to remote parking capability.
15, Not have a A380 land the same distance as an A321
16, Ability to taxi an aircraft to a holding point for a runway, or just a holding point to make room for other a/c.

[ATControl -- Joe]

1 hour ago, Gunu said:

Firstly I would like to highlight that this wish list commencement has not been mentioned on Steam at all, so all the users on Steam that don't know about this forum will be missed out!

I only stumbled upon this topic when looking for a solution to an airport problem.

My wishlist in no order of preference.

1, No bugs on final release.
2, No multiple penalty for same single event.
3, A sound played when an alert for a collision is shown (for 2 screen users busy lookimg at 2nd screen)
4, Remove red light from top of tail on airliners, should only be on GA aircraft
5, Ability to be able to rotate ADIRS to fit screen.
6, Option to remove road traffic.
7, The ability to narrow down gate assignment for landing a/c, to aid taxi route planning.
8, Large aircraft like A380 not being parked down alleyway, possibly size gates to avoid this.
9, Ability to taxi an aircraft from runway, even though its gate is not free, possibly to a holding point, instead of blocking the runway exit.
10, Once an aircraft is no longer visible to the eye, camera not to turn and focus on it when selected
11, Option to assign another key/joystick button for push to talk.
12, Better core code optimisation for cpu and graphics chips.
13, Random delays capability instead of fixed timetables that can become predictable with use.
14, Aircraft towed off gate to go to remote parking capability.
15, Not have a A380 land the same distance as an A321
16, Ability to taxi an aircraft to a holding point for a runway, or just a holding point to make room for other a/c.

No bugs on final release?  You do understand that even the biggest game developers on the planet have bugs in their games at release.  I'd scratch that one from your wish list.

[Gunu]

Just now, ATControl -- Joe said:

No bugs on final release?  You do understand that even the biggest game developers on the planet have bugs in their games at release.  I'd scratch that one from your wish list.

Hehe...……..it is a wishlist after all!

I wish there were no bugs on release. If I aim high, I hope the developers would try and achieve close to this. 🙂

[Avwriter]

7 hours ago, ATControl -- Joe said:

No bugs on final release?  You do understand that even the biggest game developers on the planet have bugs in their games at release.  I'd scratch that one from your wish list.

No bugs on final release?  I'd settle for no bugs before the next version goes into development.

 

Andrew

[ATControl -- Joe]

1 hour ago, Avwriter said:

No bugs on final release?  I'd settle for no bugs before the next version goes into development.

 

Andrew

I guess you don't read the forums much.  Developers -- we're not altering the current engine.  Your wish will never happen.  

[Avwriter]

My point was purely rhetorical.

Andrew

[crbascott]

I think no bugs is a pipe dream - however, wanting the developers to support and maintain their product for more than a year in order to squash some serious bugs  is certainly a valid request. 

[pete_agreatguy]

17 hours ago, crbascott said:

... however, wanting the developers to support and maintain their product for more than a year in order to squash some serious bugs  is certainly a valid request. 

Absolutely agree.

If base game support isn't continued throughout DLC releases; then I have no intention on wasting my money on the next version and will move onto VATSIM.

[Pedantic G]

GAME GRAPHICS

I am sure those long in the tooth forum members are aware of this game, so apologies if I am going over old ground, but I came across this game and a lot of related YT videos the other day. It's a Tablet/Phone based game but with some cleaver downloadable software you can play it on PC.

LINK TO ANOTHER GAME REMOVED

Now as a game this has a LOT of things wrong with it (ruddy expensive to get the different liveries and made up airports etc) and in many aspects not a patch on what we currently have and improvements that we WILL have in TOWER XX but what I do like are the much improved graphics on what we have now (clearer, sharper, one off liveries, more custom views and tugs not doing the twist and shout shuffle on push back ) and serves as the basis of what we should get as a minimum in the next version.

Particular likes are the flaps and reversers operating on touchdown (even to the extent of only the inner 2 engine reversers operating on the A380!), wheels up on take off giving a cleaner line and also the fact that when the aircraft turns in the air it actually "banks" to mirror the turn and on approach it does seem to follow some waypoint turns, not straight in from 20 miles away. IF we ever get to the point in the next version of actually landing and taking off using designated RNAV points at airports his would look cool. Proves it is possible but time will tell.🤨