TOWER! XX WISHLIST

[pocketdynamo87]

What I was mostly looking at were the aiport codes. In game, airports are identified by the ICAO code (which are often obsolete and sometimes never existed in the first place), while in the schedule file they're identified by the IATA code. I can't see a reason for that, but there may be one, of course. Would like to know the reason, though.

[DeltaVII]

I guess this is due to the data source.

However, the best way to do it for the next version would probably be just using a unique, numeric ID per airline which is independent from IATA and ICAO. And to do it likewise with liveries. That would make things like this possible:

[airlines.table]
// ID, IATA, ICAO, callsign, name, country
...
2041, YX, RPA, BRICKYARD, Republic Airways, USA
2042, OO, SKW, SKYWEST, SkyWest Airlines, USA

[liveries.table]
// ID, airline_ID, aircraft_type, comment
89, 2041, E170, Delta Connection
90, 2041, E170, United Express
91, 2041, E170, Republic Airways
92, 2042, CRJ7, American Eagle
93, 2042, CRJ7, United Express
94, 2042, CRJ7, SkyWest Airlines
95, 2042, CRJ7, Delta Connection

[schedule]
// ETA, ETD, airline_id, flt_no, aircraft_id, destination, livery_id
09:02, 12:00, 2041, 2741, 68, KPHL, 89  // Republic flying for Delta Connection arriving from Philadelphia
09:04, 12:00, 2042, 5502, 75, KBUF, 92  // SkyWest flying for American Eagle arriving from Buffalo
09:11, 12:00, 2041, 4331, 68, KRDU, 90  // Republic flying for United Express arriving from Raleigh-Durham
09:15, 12:00, 2042, 1172, 75, KLGA, 95  // SkyWest flying for Delta Connection arriving from LaGuardia

A bit more difficult to define, but I'm sure someone at least from the community would rather quickly come up with a neat tool for creating schedules, right, guys?

[pocketdynamo87]

2 hours ago, DeltaVII said:

However, the best way to do it for the next version would probably be just using a unique, numeric ID per airline which is independent from IATA and ICAO. And to do it likewise with liveries. That would make things like this possible:

Yeah, that looks good.

Anyways, that isn't the most important issue for me.

[crbascott]

3 hours ago, DeltaVII said:

I guess this is due to the data source.

However, the best way to do it for the next version would probably be just using a unique, numeric ID per airline which is independent from IATA and ICAO. And to do it likewise with liveries. That would make things like this possible:

[airlines.table]
// ID, IATA, ICAO, callsign, name, country
...
2041, YX, RPA, BRICKYARD, Republic Airways, USA
2042, OO, SKW, SKYWEST, SkyWest Airlines, USA

[liveries.table]
// ID, airline_ID, aircraft_type, comment
89, 2041, E170, Delta Connection
90, 2041, E170, United Express
91, 2041, E170, Republic Airways
92, 2042, CRJ7, American Eagle
93, 2042, CRJ7, United Express
94, 2042, CRJ7, SkyWest Airlines
95, 2042, CRJ7, Delta Connection

[schedule]
// ETA, ETD, airline_id, flt_no, aircraft_id, destination, livery_id
09:02, 12:00, 2041, 2741, 68, KPHL, 89  // Republic flying for Delta Connection arriving from Philadelphia
09:04, 12:00, 2042, 5502, 75, KBUF, 92  // SkyWest flying for American Eagle arriving from Buffalo
09:11, 12:00, 2041, 4331, 68, KRDU, 90  // Republic flying for United Express arriving from Raleigh-Durham
09:15, 12:00, 2042, 1172, 75, KLGA, 95  // SkyWest flying for Delta Connection arriving from LaGuardia

A bit more difficult to define, but I'm sure someone at least from the community would rather quickly come up with a neat tool for creating schedules, right, guys?

Using a number ID is fine but at some point it has to link to an ICAO (or IATA) code because, as you alluded to, that's all the data source will have. 

Other special considerations need to include special liveries and terminal/gate assignments. You didn't go into that but I believe your approach can handle that. However, if it's a number ID or ICAO based value that I conceptualized a few pages ago it doesn't really matter.

[crbascott]

51 minutes ago, pocketdynamo87 said:

Yeah, that looks good.

Anyways, that isn't the most important issue for me.

I really don't think ICAO vs IATA is the issue with airports. The real issue is that the airport files included in Real Traffic have been around since T!2011 and are terribly inaccurate - containing both bad and obsolete data. From my vantage point, I've never seen a holistic effort to clean up these files. If it were up to me, these files would be blown up and started over.

[DeltaVII]

59 minutes ago, crbascott said:

Using a number ID is fine but at some point it has to link to an ICAO (or IATA) code because, as you alluded to, that's all the data source will have. 

Other special considerations need to include special liveries and terminal/gate assignments.

Of course, in the frontend - a. k. a. the game - the display for the virtual ATC shows the ICAO code. This was strictly for the schedule "database". The flight strip will show:

RPA2741    0902  KPHL  -         19
E70              KDCA
4172       0009        -

SKW5502    0904  KBUF  -         19
CR7              KDCA
5722       0010        -

RPA4331    0911  KRDU  -         19
E70              KDCA
1509       0011        -

SKW1172    0915  KLGA  -         19
CR7              KDCA
7700       0012        -

With the terminal assignments you're right. My schedule table fell a little short on that. One solution could be to add a company_id/carrier_id/airlines_id to every flight (which can be identical to the airlines_id in case it's an non-network flight), so terminals can still be assigned to certain airlines. My first instinct was to assign terminals, but we know from JFK that it's a switchyard for gate assignments, where one aircraft can be sent from KG to HB to H and back to KF hunting for an opening stand, so the other approach would be more realistic.

[crbascott]

6 hours ago, DeltaVII said:

Of course, in the frontend - a. k. a. the game - the display for the virtual ATC shows the ICAO code. This was strictly for the schedule "database".

I know what you meant, I have a “little experience” with backend databases. My point was no matter what scheme you come up with (numbers, codes, etc) it ultimately has to tie back to ICAO code because that is really the only primary data point that is readily available from the original data sources (FA, FR24).

7 hours ago, DeltaVII said:

so terminals can still be assigned to certain airlines.

I’m hoping we can get granular than just the terminal level. 

[Vantskruv]

A lightbulb turned on above my head (it is not a heureka lightbulb, it is reminder lightbulb).
4k resolution support would be nice, I am using a 5120x1440 monitor. :)

[ashman99]

One small thing to consider is the point system. Right now the points in game don't seem to matter at least for me. I have thousands of points saved up for no purpose. You should either get rid of the point system all together for the next version or do something in which you can use your points to unlock liveries or levels depending upon skill level or completion of that particular airport.

[bill_3810]

How about multi-multi player. (At larger  airports as required)

North & South Tower (E/W)

North & South Ground (E/W)

Please work on the phraseology, it's easy enough to find in the ATC bible and you don't need a whole bunch of different options just basic , more RW.

Especially with handling traffic, toooo many calls to be made.

The ground phraseology needs much work.

Our hands are tied when it gets busy, way too many radio calls.

When you're managing a lot of traffic, "continue taxi" to cross a runway followed by "hold short of taxiway" and "contact ground" is 3 separate transmissions requiring 3 separate responses, when it could be grouped as 1 with only 1 Response required.

Proper phraseology followed by groupings of 3 or more would be helpful improvements

 

 

[bill_3810]

Wrong location sorry. Please delete

 

 

 

 

[COAviation]

Great job on the game & it's surely addicting!  I fit in the Aviation Enthusiast role & find myself lost in the game for a few hours a day.  I understand some of this may or may not relate to real world ATC life, but as I see it we play the role of multiple controllers & my biggest issue is finding the traffic info when traffic gets crazy busy.   

I primarily use mouse & keyboard, but sometimes use Voice Recognition.

1. Add Flight plan and/or 1st departure fix on the Strip.  Would make it easier to control departures at airports with runways on 2 sides of the airfield.
2. Add departure fixes to DBRITE display (If #1 happens)
3. Add ability to reorder the strip.
4. Add more info to the strip.  I'd like to see important commands somewhere on it LUP (Line Up), CTO (Cleared for Takeoff), PBK (Pushback), etc . 
5. Add plane type to aircraft on ADIRS & DBRITE
6. Say 'Heavy' when a heavy aircraft reads back its callsign
7. Add ability to have different colors for Arrivals & Departures on ADIRS.  This would help manage traffic for busier airports like DFW, LAX.
8. Add Hold Short command.  Would be useful when telling an aircraft to taxi but you want it to hold short for traffic on a taxiway.
9. Have aircraft exit taxiways quicker & allow controller to assign taxiway if needed.
10. Add a visual when a plane has been cleared to land on DBRITE.  Maybe use a different color once cleared.
11. Add Runway to aircraft Description on DBRITE & ADIRS.
12. Add commands so an aircraft can be given a command when right clicking on the strip (Clear for Takeoff, Clear to Land, etc)

Thanks for your time!!!

[crbascott]

20 hours ago, bill_3810 said:

How about multi-multi player. (At larger  airports as required)

North & South Tower (E/W)

North & South Ground (E/W)

Please work on the phraseology, it's easy enough to find in the ATC bible and you don't need a whole bunch of different options just basic , more RW.

Especially with handling traffic, toooo many calls to be made.

The ground phraseology needs much work.

Our hands are tied when it gets busy, way too many radio calls.

When you're managing a lot of traffic, "continue taxi" to cross a runway followed by "hold short of taxiway" and "contact ground" is 3 separate transmissions requiring 3 separate responses, when it could be grouped as 1 with only 1 Response required.

Proper phraseology followed by groupings of 3 or more would be helpful improvements

 

 

Could you share some specifics on the phraseology work you suggest? Obviously new commands and the ability to string commands together are needed but I thought most of the existing commands followed standards fairly well (a big improvement over T!2011). 

[bill_3810]

On 4/27/2020 at 5:13 PM, crbascott said:

Could you share some specifics on the phraseology work you suggest? Obviously new commands and the ability to string commands together are needed but I thought most of the existing commands followed standards fairly well (a big improvement over T!2011). 

Of course more verbal commands would allow each controller some variety to keep things fresh, add to realism and also to cover more situations efficiently.

The above would be nice but i'm mainly concerned with reducing the amount of separate calls required for each aircraft movement.  Each call requires a response thus reducing efficiency, increasing radio congestion and controller workload.

 

Here are some examples when taxiing out.

AAL123, Rwy 27 taxi via A, B, Hold Short Rwy 36  1 command / 1 reply

Currently this requires 2 calls 2 replies.

AA123 Rwy 27 Taxi Via A B (reply) then,  AA123 Hold Short Rwy 36 (Reply) 

Now granted the aircraft will hold short anyway but lets try and put a taste of realism in here, you WILL be instructed to hold short of runways and also requires a read back. 

and once holding short we currently use, "Continue Taxi" which is not a clearance to cross a runway

AA123 Runway 27 Continue Taxi Via Charlie, Cross Rwy 36.  1 command/resp

Or all the way:

AA123 Runway 27 TAxi via A, B, C Cross Runway 36  again 1 command and response

Currently you can give the aircraft every thing BUT cross runway,  you then have to wait for the aircraft to hold short of the runway then say "Continue Taxi"  which is not a clearance to cross a runway.

 

Same thing with taxiways.

AA123 Taxi to ramp via A, B, Hold Short C1  (maybe for outbound traffic)  Again 1 command and response but requires 2 commands in game currently.... and 2 responses  EDIT:  This one may work currently but can't be combined with a runway crossing.

Here is one that I hate.  Aircraft exits runway and you want to taxi him across parallel runway and hold short of taxiway on other side.

AA123 Taxi to Ramp Via WW, X Cross Runway 35L, Hold Short Taxiway F  1 com/reply

Currently 3 calls and responses AA123 Taxi to ramp via WW, X.. once holding short of 35L  Continue Taxi, once he's received that command and responded, Hold short taxiway F, once he replies to that then you can instruct him to contact ground. with another call.  4x4  

Now imagine DFW during rush hour at 100% or any airport that's really busy with complex airport layouts,  It just makes the game very inefficient especially at the busier airports.

 

These are some of the more common examples, keeping in mind also i'm not aware of any Voice Recognition limitations or software design limitations concerning Tower 3D.

We definitely need to add, "Cross Runway XXX"

 

However if we can combine more commands we could use mostly the existing ones with maybe a small change or addition of a couple.

Using the example above. AAL123 Taxi to Ramp via WW, X (cross runway 35L), Hold Short F.  Once on other side you could send him to ground.

Now that is using all current commands within the game except cross runway, which would need to be added.  The only change would be to allow us to string all of that together iwth 1 radio call.

 

Now I only have about 10-15 hours experience with the simulation so if some of these commands can be tied together then please let me know, I see nothing in the manual allowing me to do so and have tried many times with no success.

EDIT 2:  I can also think of some simple things that could reduce calls by allowing the addition of Contact Ground to holding short of a taxiway.

Example:  Hold Short F, Contact Ground

 

EDIT 3:  Sorry   Having flown internationally and in the USA RW there are some airports that will absolutely chew you a new *** if you stop when exiting a runway, for example, OHARE.  If you stop after exiting a runway you will cause a go around for sure and certainly get the attention of a very PO'd controller.  When flying in here you exit and if ground is too busy you jump in line with the flow and call when there is a pause on frequency.  We can't simulate this here BUT we could do this.
You could give an aircraft a command to Txi to Ramp via D, Contact Ground.

So when he exits you can send him on a parallel taxiway and have him go straight to ground all in 1 command, takes 2 now.

 

LASTLY change Delta taxiway in Atlanta to DIXIE PLEASE...i'ts how they do it real world.

 

EDIT 4: 28 Apr 2020 - Concerning Taxi Instructions.  Taxi an aircraft after another.

SWA1996: RWY 27  Taxi Behind  AAL1703    OR  SWA1996 RWY 27 Follow AAL1703,  Of course what ever instructions you gave AA1703 would then need to be followed in general by SWA196

Vacating:  SW1196 Plan to Vacate Right onto Taxiway A6

 

Will

 

 

[crbascott]

Thanks @bill_3810, I totally agree we need progressive taxi and the ability to string commands together.

On 4/26/2020 at 1:04 PM, bill_3810 said:

Please work on the phraseology, it's easy enough to find in the ATC bible and you don't need a whole bunch of different options just basic , more RW.

I assumed that the above statement was geared towards the current set of commands not following FAA or other command syntax standards. I'm going to assume that based on your response that the current syntax is fine but your major problem is mostly with the inefficiency of the current single command / single reply approach. 

[bill_3810]

2 hours ago, crbascott said:

I assumed that the above statement was geared towards the current set of commands not following FAA or other command syntax standards. I'm going to assume that based on your response that the current syntax is fine but your major problem is mostly with the inefficiency of the current single command / single reply approach. 

Well a complete overhaul of the commands is not necessary at all.  The commands we have now allow us to do most of what we need to do. 

There are however a few key commands and combinations that if added/changed would make it more efficient.  (previously posted)

Also unless an Air Traffic Controller tells you what side to vacate a GA aircraft will vacate in the direction of the GA ramp and Airliners towards the terminal, so having GA aircraft vacating on the terminal side is not the way it would happen, in Fact you might find ATC getting irritated because now they have to send you back across the runway to get to your parking.

Case at point San Diego, the GA aircraft exit runway 27 on the terminal side even if they are parking on the opposite side,  This requires an additional instruction from me on which way to vacate. Sometimes the aircraft can't make the taxiway due to long roll out such as Fed Ex then of course they exit on terminal side and follow instructions.

So to answer your question, the commands and syntax doesn't need a complete overhaul just some tweaking and of course AI behavior such as exiting the runway on the correct side and a few other tweaks would be super!

 

[bill_3810]

Here is another suggestion and it deals with Arrivals.

When aircraft are handed off from Approach there needs to be at least a basic command to reply to the aircraft.

If I report on frequency with tower and there is no response then I call back when freq is free.

SO.

Common check ins with tower.

Aircraft:  AAL123, ILS 36L or Visual 36L or 10 Miles 36L, or just 36L  not "with you 36L".

ATC:  AA123 Continue 36L, AA123 Continue Number 2., AA123 contine 36L report 5 miles

Some response back to the aircraft when they check in instead of not responding until cleared to land & if you don't respond they should call you again.

 

And the all important Wind report before clearance to land.

AA123 Runway 36L wind 360 @ 10 knots , cleared to land

Airplane Icons:  Nice to have ICONs that match the aircraft on the ADIRS screen instead of all airplanes 4 engine jumbo jets.

 

[Vantskruv]

I am not sure if anyone whished this.

* AI reminds you if you have not answered his call
You may issue an answer like "wait" or "standby" (or something similar in reallife terms) when you do not have time for the calling aircraft, and they will wait a couple of minutes until calling again.

* AI questions, or try to correct you, if you are giving them illogical commands.
I.e. giving the command "cross runway 25L" while the aircraft is waiting to cross runway 25R, the AI will answer "do you mean 25R?", and you may answer "affirmative", or "negative" if you really want to give a command to cross runway 25L early on while the aircraft is still waiting at 25R (I know, that would be the dumbest command to give at that situation, but maybe you have reasons... and of course the AI will still hold to wait for clearance crossing 25R), and then the aircraft will repeat the correct clearance. Of course, AI may misinterpret your command and answer "cleared to cross runway 25R" while you issued a clearance to cross runway 25L, so you still need to be sharp. 😁
This was just one example, I guess there are more situations which the AI questions your illogical commands, i.e. for landing clearances and so on...

[EliGrim]

@Vantskruv this is exactly what I expect from the new Tower version. Natural communication with the pilots (possibly also ground crew as ground controller) with intelligent speech recognition that recognizes the key words in a sentence and forms a valid command from it and this in a realistic modern tower environment. And if no valid command can be formed, a reasonable response and generally a realistic behaviour of the pilots. Furthermore, it should be possible to correct or revoke commands. Ideally, there will also be optional AI controllers, so that, if desired, only a part of the traffic volume can be handled and to which flights can be transferred or from which we can take over flights (strips).
Nice graphics is a bonus for me and should not be the main feature of the new version.

[DeltaVII]

4 hours ago, Vantskruv said:

Of course, AI may misinterpret your command and answer "cleared to cross runway 25R" while you issued a clearance to cross runway 25L, so you still need to be sharp. 😁

You want Harrison Ford to be the AI?

[Pdubya]

Good submissions guys, spot on with the voice recognition/commands area.

I am wondering if the individual airports should not have their associated "parameters" data in the new version. In other words, a small database that gets read by the game engine when loaded, with important particulars such as:

Main, (Aux?), GA, Cargo Terminal location when Arriving and Departing. So those pesky GA flights know where to go now... 😉

Airframe size allowances for each individual or group of gates at the terminals. Again, so incoming flights don't try to squeeze into those 'Calvin Klein' gates with a wide body! 😁

With regards to Airline codes and such, it occurs to me that we might want the ability to have Legacy Airlines, planes and such. I would REALLY lose my s@*t if I could have a 1950s or 1960s scenario with my Lockheed Constellations and friends. WOOT! (uhh, sorry, got a bit carried away there) 😳

P.

[Pdubya]

Another thought.

It might be a cool option to have an AI Controller Partner if you are learning or need a gentle nudge now and then.

Any time as a Controller where you are approaching the closing of a crucial (or perhaps not so crucial) timing window, the AICoP would perhaps "remind" you with a popup text (or even voice) message that 'inbound flight ZX001 lacks clearance and gate assignment'; thus helping you avoid the dreaded penalty and go-around dance.

Alternatively, we need some way to help us keep track of whether flights have all the clearances and instructions they require yet. Perhaps it is linked in some other way with the gameflow, like a particular icon or color, etc. You get the idea.

I just feel that no controller works in a vacuum in real life. They have bosses and coworkers nearby to manage the traffic load.

[FeelThere_Vic]

Thank you everyone. Now the list is closed. Today we prioritized the wishlist and (without going into detail) many of the wishes went into our high priority list.

Once again thank you for taking time and contributing to this list.

 

Vic

[crbascott]

Darn, had one more that I was going to add. 😉 

Good luck @FeelThere, I'm anxiously awaiting what the the next level of this product brings us.

[Pizman]

Thats Bad....   I purchased this game 1 week ago and after i got 20 hrs of gameplay i build a list and now it´s closed 😞

Whatever.... All my points are still talked about.

@ Devs
I realy hope you not make the same misstake like other puplishers and have priority to grafics and optics.
I think you see in the list most people request for FEATURES.   Mostly additional Commands like "Cross runway" "give way" "folow aircraft in front of you" experdite" and so on.This game is a ATC Simulator..... not a "Airport and Plane 3D Presentation tool" .   Keep Focus on the basics.... And thats a Game that allow us all Comands and technics as a real ATC can also use.

 

I can speak only for myself....  But i would play TowerXX also if it got  early 2000´s grafics without a 3D View.  99% of time the user just look on the Radar Screen.
So PLEASE....  Implement as much new features as possible and not waste time to design Liveries.