New Tower Simulation game in development
 

Afternoon -

Looks like Wilco and FeelThere are planning a commercial consumer simulation product.

http://www.towersimulator.com/

No forums etc seem to have any further details? Has anyone else found a release date/status of the project?

Best,
Mark

I don't remember being taught terpsichoreal skills at Hurn. I'm sure it was only one nav plotting lecture I slept through.

This might have the "vatsim" problem.. people play on this lots before getting to the college and then end up having to use the 2D aerodrome sims and can't cope with the lack of perspective :E

It looks cool I must admit, however game-ish i'm sure the architecture of the software is.

Hell, why can't Hurn get something like this drawn up by the Engineering boys downstairs?

If a few computing students writing addon software for FSX using the FS-SDK can do it, I'm sure NATS can based on NATS-ACE...

You agree, Tone?

I do agree - my *anonymous* friend :)

The problem is whether or not they can prove it will be worth the investment.. will more students pass because of it, or will more students validate because of it?

Would be such a big overhaul, and then training and everything else.. would be wicked though!

Why can't they get it at Hurn?

Simple. We got it [in it's previous incarnation] some 12 YEARS ago! Then it only had two US airports and a rather boxy-looking "generic" one, but it did integrate with MS Flight Simulator so you could control on one game for a pilot flying in the other.

Was it any good?

Not really. All the phraseology was very "American" [sorry Yanks] and thus no use for training UK Controllers. This version looks prettier [DirectX graphics] but is still based on the same non-UK phraseology. It's no use to Hurn, but may be of interest for ATCOs to let their kids play with. IMHO though, if you want to watch aeroplanes coming and going on your PC, buy Flight Sim X and install the Heathrow scenery.

We saw this advertised and after a wry smile or two, said "No Thanks".

Why doesn't NATS use the kind of basic TWR-simulator they have at Entry Point North (Sweden)? I think it is made by BAe-systems... 270 degree twr. view stretched over 4x 27" monitors. Supported by ADA, APP + 2x pilot positions.

They do basic twr.-sim there (approx 5 weeks), while the 4 month ADI-course is done on 270 degree floor-to-roof monitors (back-projection).

TH

How many on a tower course in Sweden?

Simtac will never be bettered.

Ahem.

We are approx. 140 students at EPN. Course is approx 15 months (including summer leave etc).

4,5 months "basic"
4 months Approach
4 months ADI (TWR).

Each class is approx 20 students.
Passrate of roughly 80 % I guess.

TH

Cost. All the money goes on Gonzo's tea-swindle and there is none left for anything else :E

Actually, the question is being asked [again] at Hurn, prior to moving to the new College.:ok:

More money being spent on subsidising the canteen at Hurn.....I took full advantage while down there last week!

"
Quote "The problem is whether or not they can prove it will be worth the investment.. will more students pass because of it, or will more students validate because of it?"

Hurn must be one of the last ATC Training agencies in Europe that does not use 3D tower simulators.

As for return on investment, the USAF have over 90 large footprint tower simulators and have reported between 30% and 50% reduction in training time since the were introduced. The FAA have 14 simulators with another 24 on order and they are reporting similar reductions. ENAV have over 30 tower simulators and most of the remaining European agencies have at least 1.

The succesful return on investment calculation for 3D tower simulators is well documented (when buying existing commercially available technology). ROI for self built simulators is not as clear.

There are at least 1/2 dozen commercial ATC simulator companies in Europe alone, with over 20 companies worldwide. There are probably 4 or 5 companies that lead the market.

Just 'cos Uncle Sam has bought some expensive toys, doesn't automatically make them any more useful... e.g. Nuclear powered aircraft carriers or moon missions.

No-one can argue that 3D doesn't have it's place, but it is hard to justify the additional cost/complexity during the early stages of training. At the top end of the training curve, who would argue against training in a real tower [Gonz, you've had the most recent experience in the company on the merits or lack thereof of a modern 3D "bells and whistles" simulator during validation training, care to expound to the watching masses?] as opposed to any form of simulator?

Personally, I'd love to have a dozen of the buggers at my disposal, as there can be no better way of demonstrating the famous "Father Ted" adage that "Those cows are big, Dougal, but they are far away", but I can't see Mr Barron stumping up for them. He might be persuaded to cough for a couple though, just to keep up with the Joneses [or Johanssons]. If nothing else, they impress the crap out of visiting dignatories [and CEOs].

Bit pushed for time right now, so this will only be quick....I might 'expound' at length at a later date...

We've not noticed much of a decrease in training time so far, but then we've only had one validation since we started using our 360 sim for validation training. In my opinion that's mainly down to two reasons: It's too early to tell (that validation was someone with previous LL TWR experience....ab-initios are still coming through the system), and the task has grown more complex and more difficult, with the layout of the tower and EFPS. Of course, without the sim it would have meant even longer training time, I'm sure, so in a way we are down to semantics.

I believe I mentioned in another thread that until we have HD graphics and perhaps mature DVI technology, any aerodrome sim will have flaws. Even ours, staffed with ten or more on the input side, struggles to keep up with a busy exercise. To be honest, I've only had one session in our 360 sim that felt real. Simulation is still simulation. Radar sims get a lot closer to reality.

Anybody remember; http://www.clive.nl/detail/23806/

Even that would have made a big difference to me in '72! How do I know? I "played" it on my 48K Speccy in '86. A Tower sim would have been a forlorn dream with that kit.

Rumour has it, the BAe Systems ATC College at Cwmbran are preparing a 3D Tower sim at the moment, based on the one they developed for Sweden. Possibly 'operational' in the autumn?

Dances with Boffins

Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Sweden and Heathrow Airport etc have nothing to do with Uncle Sam and they are just a handful of a huge number of countries that have adopted and proven the value of 3D simulation. However for those systems with labor intensive human pseudo pilots or very poorly implemented speech recognition (DVI), achieving a high level of intensity in a realistic fashion is very difficult. Pseudo Pilots are only capable of processing ATC commands in a serial manner and ATC requires a mechanism that can deal with rapid command instructions without having to wait for the poor pseudo pilot to catch up.

Training in the real tower, I agree that this is of course more realistic and everyone would prefer to talk to real traffic, but this approach has a number of serious flaws. The throughput in a real tower of trainees is very much limited by availability of traffic, number of instructors and number of trainees you are trying to qualify. It is also not possible to determine if the level and complexity of live traffic will be suitable for the actual level of competency of a trainee at a specific time. Too much traffic when the student is not ready for it is actually detrimental to good learning and progress.

New trainees should not be dropped straight into the 3D Tower but when they reach a certain level of competency (through other means such as CBT, Classroom study and single seat 2D or 3D trainers), the 3D Tower is much more efficient as the amount, complexity and quality of traffic can be precisely tailored for the competency level of a specific student.

As for Uncle Sam, the FAA did an 18 month study with 4 systems located at Chicago, Miami, Ontario and Phoenix before deciding to expand the project and there are numerous documented studies showing the benefits of 3D simulation.

Having said all of that, no simulator is perfect, there are always things that can be improved. For what its worth (and since you don't know me, you have every right to dismiss this) in my opinion, the technology exists today that would permit the development of a realistic tower simulator that could take students from new entry to very close to certification without stepping in the real tower. The components all exist (Speech Recognition, Intelligent Agents, Photo Realsitic High Resolution Graphics etc). This capability could be developed for relatively little money compared to what could be saved through reduced training time.

It doesn't exist today because no one so far has been willing to fund it and no simulator company has done a sufficient marketing job to convince any of the training organizations to believe it is possible. It is however coming and much like the fact that a pilot can qualify to captain an aircraft through zero flight time simulation, without having flown in the real one, in a few years controllers will be qualifying without having spoken to a real aircraft.

Please don't read this as me preaching, I am just very excited and passionate about ATC and what technology can bring to the table. It's easy to get carried away.

In the Netherlands we just got an enormous update in our 3d 360 degrees tower-sim, I can't comment on what it does to the validation-rate but I do know it looks extremely realistic and the pseudo pilot are easily quick enough to respond in time. (Most of the time they are faster than real pilots!)

Ruslan124 - thanks for your comments. I too am excited by developments in training technology. With regard to realism, modern tower sims which I've seen recently have been extremely impressive. You make an interesting point about the appicability of "2D" simulation and tools such as CBT earlier in the training process. This appears to be an area which has been somewhat neglected in the quest for greater realism - which surely has a place in the latter stages of training (even to the extent of full qualification as you suggest). I work in a regional training unit with your Northern neighbour; notwithstanding an impending tower simulator upgrade, a regional initiative involves developing our use of "low-level" simulation. This is where we feel there are significant gains to be made in terms of training success. Are there any US studies in this area of which you are aware? By the way, do you know where I could find any of the reports on the efficacy of the 3D sims in the US?

Thanks,
P