ATC MENU FILTERING
-
I don’t think “realism” is the right lense to look at the filtering feature. There is no keyboard comms menu irl, period. Whoever is going for realism, will be using voice recognition or human AWACS/tower. Whether the menu is filtered or not does neither increase nor decrease BMS realism. In the end, typing Q-1 instead of asking AWACS for a picture will never be realistic nor immersive. It is simply a UI
workaround for not having voice recognition or human AWACS/tower.Therefore, I think you should just leave the filtering in as it help new players. Imho even removing it is time that could be spent more meaningfully elsewhere. What some members suggested, i.e. making filtering on/off a setting sounds like overkill and a waste of resources.
It MAY make sense to enable all commands, but display the filtered entries in a different color to simply indicate that these aren’t useful in this particular moment. That, of course, adds the complexity you would need to add to cover “wrong” radio calls. While that may be a thing irl, I believe it is not a much needed feature.
-
Hello an option can be to highlight the major commands and keep the existing ones.
-
Keep existing. Could filtered, aka ‘Assisted Comms’ be an option? If that is even feasible and or/easy to implement…
-
@zeus said in ATC MENU FILTERING:
While I’m all for realism, the reality is that in real world, if I make a bad call on ATC (like calling departure “approach” or “tower”, the ATC personnel will respond and give me the instructions they were going to if I had called them correctly (they’ll also use their correct callsign and if I’m paying attention I would pick up on that and correct on my response).
So for me, having filters doesn’t take away the realism. Just because I “fat finger” a menu command doesn’t mean I would really do that in real life.
Thanks for the filters!
Filters ON, also for me!
-
I vote keep the filters!
-
I vote “keep it as it is”.
It adds readability and help certainly young users no accustomed to them.
Besides, IRL, you do not mistaking “Request departure clearance” with “Inbound for radar vector” … if so, it is time to see an neuronal specialist. -
I voted to keep the exisiting menu filtering. Mainly because, in my opinion, it helps to standardise what can be communicated to different freqs, (Tower, Ground, Awacs, etc). IRL if an Aviator makes a wrong call, ATC (in most cases) will respond to sort out the wrong call. ISL (in simulation life) I think that this responce would be very sparce, or not be answered at all. Thus it will not help the sim Aviator to understand his mistake.
-
@viper-0 said in ATC MENU FILTERING:
@mav-jp We advocate for realism. As we would say among our wing, if you make a bad communication, check, correct and speak. Without filtering, please.
I agree: voice communication.
It would increase realism
-
In any cases I suggest not to removes “lines” or “menu pages” depending on flight phases.
If we do so, it will break any Voice Activation software.See what I mean?
-
I’m not sure I understand what the suggestion is:
- Remove unavailable options from the menu?
- Leave all options and sorting as is but don’t “grey out” the options even if the call is unavailiable?
If its 1, then I would vote against since it will make voice comms software useless. If its 2, then sounds good! Although this will increase the amount of questions “why does this not work?” among players.
-
Apparently this new forum structure doesn’t provide a ‘polling’ option.
I think the arguments FOR continue filtering outweigh the arguments against filtering.
-
@kiwi said in ATC MENU FILTERING:
I don’t think “realism” is the right lense to look at the filtering feature. There is no keyboard comms menu irl, period. Whoever is going for realism, will be using voice recognition or human AWACS/tower. Whether the menu is filtered or not does neither increase nor decrease BMS realism. In the end, typing Q-1 instead of asking AWACS for a picture will never be realistic nor immersive. It is simply a UI
workaround for not having voice recognition or human AWACS/tower.Therefore, I think you should just leave the filtering in as it help new players. Imho even removing it is time that could be spent more meaningfully elsewhere. What some members suggested, i.e. making filtering on/off a setting sounds like overkill and a waste of resources.
It MAY make sense to enable all commands, but display the filtered entries in a different color to simply indicate that these aren’t useful in this particular moment. That, of course, adds the complexity you would need to add to cover “wrong” radio calls. While that may be a thing irl, I believe it is not a much needed feature.
^^ This!^^
I agree that the filters should remain. Personally, I use @SemlerPDX’s superb AVCS voice recognition system for immersion. I almost can’t live without it! The menus are just a backup/confirmation that my voice commands executed properly. Changing the menus would, in this case, just be wasted effort - the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. And I fear it would break more things than it fixes.
@Mav-jp, let’s work on improving the overall voice comms in the game for best immersion. I’m ready to help with that!
Regards,
Tomcattwo
(VoiceClone) -
@tomcattwo You’re not speaking about the same thing here…
@Mav-jp is mentioning about the Comms menu being greyed out when you’re not on the right page for the right ATC freq…
-
@sobad said in ATC MENU FILTERING:
Apparently this new forum structure doesn’t provide a ‘polling’ option.
I think the arguments FOR continue filtering outweigh the arguments against filtering.
It has polling option and the poll is on the first post of this thread
-
refresh the page if you don’t see the poll…
-
@mav-jp
@dee-jay said in ATC MENU FILTERING:In any cases I suggest not to removes “lines” or “menu pages” depending on flight phases.
If we do so, it will break any Voice Activation software.Related to this – consider opening a socket or named-pipe for thirdparty apps to invoke callbacks…? just a stream of newline-delimited strings, would probably suffice.
Maybe even RegisterWindowMessage/WM_USER messages would be easier. (And then, do a pass to ensure all the necessary callbacks exist … iirc the newer ATC and carrier-ops comms aren’t implementend as callbacks today?)
Then you won’t be locked in to the current menu layout … and supporting eg. SendInput(“t,t,t,t,4”) as an unbreakable interface contract.
-
@maxwaldorf said in ATC MENU FILTERING:
refresh the page if you don’t see the poll…
EDIT: Refreshing worked
(turning off my adblocker reloaded the page, the reload was the real ‘fix’) -
I like that I can’t remove/ install the safety pins on the once in the air - would this be changed?
-
@dee-jay said in ATC MENU FILTERING:
Besides, IRL, you do not mistaking “Request departure clearance” with “Inbound for radar vector” … if so, it is time to see an neuronal specialist.
I can assure you they don’t want to be involved.
-
Why don`t make it optional?