Microsoft Flight Sim/Radar Contact versus Live ATC, sort of

[Calvin Waterbury]

Hello,

I have read about this subject on the Internet and one thing I have noticed is the MSFS (and in some cases the Radar Contact) ATC is a convenient "whipping boy" among "live" ATC aficionados. There seems to be a disdain for it's rudimentary "controlling." I am no simpleton and I can recognize some differences, especially the lack of spontaneity that neither software provides. Beyond this I would like to hear specific point-counterpoint where both or either packages come up short. I specifically want to know "where" or "how" (if any) either or both teach or encourage bad habits or mindsets.

My experience in using "live" ATC via Pilotedge has exposed me to more real-world virtual experiences in regulated airspace. Herein lies the crux of my conundrum and inquiry... because beyond the spontaneous nature of engaging with real human beings, I do not see where either MSFS (with Editvoicepack[X]) or RC4 do that bad of a job? Hence, my desire for this discussion. My thanks in advance for your assistance.

[Calvin Waterbury]

An addendum to the reformatted post above... I realize it is a no-brainer for seasoned real-world pilots and controllers. I am asking from the complete newbie to novice perspective. Aside from my personal limitations, I have seen the MSFS/RC4 ATC as having real value IMO. I just wanted to clarify this.

[Keith Smith]

I have zero experience with the products in question, but I have used 2 other synthetic systems in the past, one of which is X-Plane's built-in ATC, and the other is a commercial product that I'd rather not call out by name.

So, I can't speak to the specific pitfalls of using the products that you listed. However, I can take a guess at the answer to your question, which would be
- there are negative behaviors that can be learned as not all of the subtle nuances of ATC are modeled. For example, there is no consequence (even within the offline simulation) to taking an unreasonable amount of time to respond to an instruction, or not responding at all for that matter.

- re-routes, shortcuts, accurate routing to begin with...all generally missing. This can leave someone under prepared to fly in a higher fidelity online system or the real world

- there are so many elements of the interactions with ATC which are not modeled. It's a relatively static affair, it's predictable, the pacing never changes

- ATC is a dynamic affair where the instructions issued to one aircraft are largely based on what's going on at the time with traffic in the immediate area. That's something that's not generally accounted for in the synthetic systems that I have seen to date.

- different controllers have differing styles, cadences, personalities, controlling preferences and even vocabularies...none of which is captured by synthetic systems.

- there's a certain rigidity to synthetic systems which might give a pilot the impression that they cannot ask a question in plain English to ATC, or simply request what they want, because no such menu option was available in the synthetic system.

That's what springs to mind in terms of negative transfer issues off the top of my head.

[Calvin Waterbury]

Hi Keith,

Very good! This is what I was looking for, sort of, but I do wish someone who has used the MSFS/RC4 products could have chimed in. Actually, I can understand why there wouldn't, but my lack is your gain. What I'm saying is I was coming to the question from the standpoint of a simpilot, whereas it appears the population here is geared more toward real pilots. Congratulations! I believe that was PE's goal from the start. Perhaps this is not the best forum for this question given the above, but I like it here.

I have zero experience with the products in question, but I have used 2 other synthetic systems in the past, one of which is X-Plane's built-in ATC, and the other is a commercial product that I'd rather not call out by name.

I think the deck was stacked against you on this one. I have had a little experience with a commercial synth back in the '90's. How old it was then I do not know, but it was a totally on-rails canned experience. It was modeled for a C-130, but IMO the best benefit was allowing the student pilot to learn where everything was on the panels. As far as the earlier X-Plane... the most dismal excuse of ATC I had ever experienced. I found it hard to believe the same genius which developed the X-Plane simulator could have produced such poor synthetic ATC. So, my reflections on what MSFS' and RC4's representation of ATC was like may seem odd to you.

So, I can't speak to the specific pitfalls of using the products that you listed. However, I can take a guess at the answer to your question, which would be...

Ah! Well, let me comment on these bullets (great food for thought, by the way). Just for fun, I'm going to "keep score." Yes, I know it is totally moot. It wouldn't be a contest of "which is better." That would be ridiculous, but I will try to see how close synthetics measure up (at least for simpilots).

- there are negative behaviors that can be learned as not all of the subtle nuances of ATC are modeled. For example, there is no consequence (even within the offline simulation) to taking an unreasonable amount of time to respond to an instruction, or not responding at all for that matter.

As far as MSFS and RC4, this is not the case. The ATC in both can be quite annoying as a real-world controller. I will concede you can tell a RW controller, "Please wait a minute." Not an option in synthetic ATC, but simpilots can use "Say again?" to gain time.
(Real = 1.0 / Synths = 1.0)

- re-routes, shortcuts, accurate routing to begin with...all generally missing. This can leave someone under prepared to fly in a higher fidelity online system or the real world

I have to totally concede *this* flexibility. There is nothing like, "shortcuts" in the synths; in fact, the first time I was instructed to take a shortcut by a PE controller, I remembered being disoriented. I had heard the controller tell me what to do, but I was paralyzed because my synthetic-trained mind would not let me accept the instruction at face value.
+1 for Real, -1 for synthetic for bad conditioning. (Real = 2.0 / Synths = 0.0)

- there are so many elements of the interactions with ATC which are not modeled. It's a relatively static affair, it's predictable, the pacing never changes

Hmm... Not completely. Only having the comparison of working to a PE I-9 in RW in comparison to 1000+ hours with MSFS/RC4, I have to say the synthetics do pretty good here. I have never had the impression of my synths being static or any more predictable than PE "RW" ATC. I attribute this to always using high levels of A.I. traffic which randomized the radio traffic enough to never seemed canned of even repetitive.
1 for Real, 1 for Synths (Real = 3.0 / Synths = 1.0)

- ATC is a dynamic affair where the instructions issued to one aircraft are largely based on what's going on at the time with traffic in the immediate area. That's something that's not generally accounted for in the synthetic systems that I have seen to date.

I'll agree RW has spontaneity which consumer-level synths can't possibly produce at the current price-points, but I do have to say the A.I. traffic patterns have always appeared random to me IMO. The traffic entities *may* all be clones, but the timing(?) and the interactions provoked have never seemed to me to be anything other than random. Other mileages may vary.
1 for Real, 0.9 for Synths (Real = 4.0 / Synths = 1.9)

- different controllers have differing styles, cadences, personalities, controlling preferences and even vocabularies...none of which is captured by synthetic systems.

Yes, this is true. In MSFS the various "controller" voices are different, but have the same personality. The RC4 voices do have some personality since they are human voice bites and have personality, but it does sound canned with some regular use.
1 for Real, 0.8 for Synths (Real = 5.0 / Synths = 2.7)

- there's a certain rigidity to synthetic systems which might give a pilot the impression that they cannot ask a question in plain English to ATC, or simply request what they want, because no such menu option was available in the synthetic system.

My personal experience will vouch for you on this one too. I have been a victim(?) of what you describe.
1 for Real, -1 for Synths (Real = 6.0 / Synths = 1.7)

Wow!
6 points for the "Home" team and only 1.7 for the "Pretenders."

I always knew the real experience was superior, but I expected the synthetics to fare better. Essentially, the "Pretenders" took big losses in setting inaccurate expectations in the novitiate. The negative enforcement in the mind of the novice of the lack of ATC flexibility and the additional options available to the RW pilot are significant drawbacks for the uninitiated who gains his/her first dance with ATC.

So, this provokes the question if synths really are, "better than nothing?" I think it really depends on what each individual wants to accomplish. If one is a "gamer," then it makes hardly any difference, except the synthetic will create the wrong overall impression. On the other hand, someone who is a "simulation-er" will have to reconcile the short-comings of the synthetic with the realities of the real.

Lastly, a related question... Is it really possible for the "simulation-er" pilot to co-exist with the synthetics versus the real-world?
That is a question I do not feel qualified to answer.

[Mark Hargrove]

I used RC4 for quite a while before I discovered PE. There is just no comparison. RC4 is much better than the stock ATC in FSX, but all of Kevin's points against synthetic ATC totally apply. I suppose RC4 might be something that whets your appetite for a better ATC experience (and I was searching for just such a thing when I came across PE).

One kind of fun thing (for me) that I still occasionally do with RC4 is that when my wife flies home from visiting family in Minneapolis or Phoenix, I "fly" the same route in the same (or roughly the same) type aircraft, departing at the same time she does, and matching my route against the real aircraft with one of the various flight-tracking web sites. It's less engaging that in used to be, because RC4 is so "flat" -- nothing interesting ever happens. Except occasionally, when it insists I'm off course and keeps trying to give me vectors to, well to somewhere. I just ignore it and it fixes itself at the next waypoint -- much like I fly on PE when Keith is controlling

-M.

[Calvin Waterbury]

Hmm... "Kevin"

* Typo?
* Freudian Slip?
* Intentional brilliant humorous homogenization?

This ambiguity is delicious! Reminds me of my college days (another story).

[Keith Smith]

I get called Kevin at least twice a week and barely notice it at this point

[Calvin Waterbury]

I get called Kevin at least twice a week and barely notice it at this point

You are not the only one, hence my comment.
Occasionally I get called Kyle, Kelvin, Cavin and Keith too. Anyway, the ambiguity was funny to think about!

[Mark Hargrove]

Yeah, it doesn't help that a guy I grew up with is named "Kevin Smith". I can barely type "Ke..." without my fingers automatically typing the last three characters incorrectly.