What's New In The File Library
Member Submitted Reviews
Bargain Hunters Forum
Classified, Want, Swap Ads
Community Links Library
FS9, FSX & P3D CTD Guide (v2)
FSX / P3D Configuration Guide
Simulation's Premier Resource!
AVSIM is a free service to the flight and simulation communities. Please help us keep it that way. Donate what you can today! Thank you for your support!
- San Diego Lindbergh International Airport 40% off
- Rise of flight sale on steam
- REX 5 days 50 people 50% off contest
- Thai Creations 50% off sale
- FlightsimTools.com 3 for 2 deal
- SimSkunkWorks planes 50% off until Aug. 16th
- Another FSX-SE Sale on Steam
- ImagineSim airports 20% off at their website
- 3 Imaginesim airports now freeware
- X-Plane VMAX 777 Workdliner Extended 50% Off!
- Saitek Radio & Multi panel
- Selling My 737 Gear :(
- MSI GTX 980 4GB OC Editon. $400
- MSI N550GTX-TI
- GoFlight GF-TQ6 Throttle Quadrant on Ebay(UK)
- For Sale:GOFLIGHT GF-TQ6 Throttle Quadrant
- (2) EVGA GTX970 SC For Sale. Never overclocked, ready to go
- Boeing Style handles / Levers set for Saitek throttle quadrant
- UK Only - Saitek Cessna Yoke and addtional Throttle Quadrant
- MEGASCENERYEARTH V2 Baltimore/Washington DC, Maryland and Virginia DVD
. . .
Radar Contact 4, better than Vatsim!
20 replies to this topic
Posted 29 August 2006 - 03:56 PM
I must admit, after using RC for a while now I couldn't fly without it. I too was very, very sceptical/reluctant at first but now find it great. Especially the radio chatter, which is also positionally aware depending on which centre you are tuned to, and stage of flight you are in.
Posted 29 August 2006 - 05:09 AM
>I am a RW pilot too and am not "defending" RC because I don't>use it due to the much debated "computer voice issue." Others>seem to "get used to it" but I don't WANT to get used to it.>But when the voices are improved to suit my own personal>tastes, I would be an RC user in a hearbeat.>>Regards,>JimI put off getting RC for a while for the same reason, but they greatly improved the "robotic" sound of the voices. I've been using it for about a year, now. I quickly forgot about the robotic thing when presented with much more realistic ATC. In fact, it's quite smooth. To me, the quality of the voices are comparable to the default ATC. The real world procedures make it much more realistic vs. default ATC and having controllers everywhere, anytime, make it the only ATC solution, AFAIC. If you heard the samples posted on the website when it first came out, like I did, I can understand being put off. The changes they made helped greatly. Some people's voices work better than others, but you can use only the ones you like. RC has a menu where you can listen to voices as you pick them. They also have different accents and you can download additional voices. I don't regret going to RC, at all.I could never go back to the emptiness of Vatsim or the fly heading 150, 170, 150, 170, 150... I prefer the deviating for WX, PD to 19000, cross 40 miles from ATL at 11000, 250 knots. Reduce speed to 210 knots. And my favorite, a reasonably realistic ILS approach, rather than the famous FS 55 mile final.:-roll ~EwingKATLMSI K8N Neo2 PlatinumAMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0 GHz2GB Corsair PC-3200 512x4 Dual Channel CL2.5 DDR DIMM eVGA nVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT 256MB DDR3Sound Blaster Audigy LSOCZ Powerstream 420WWinXPPro (SP1)
Posted 29 August 2006 - 04:03 AM
>And thatis just it. Sitting there watching the planes KNOWING>they arent real is about as fun as watching paint dry.It works both ways. ;)Flying from KATL during "rush hour", and having two other planes and no controllers, is, "about as much fun as watching paint dry".
Posted 28 August 2006 - 10:18 PM
You are CERTAINLY entitled to your opinion with with a statement like<
> it seems that you intend to state a FACT and not an opinion.I am a registered VATSIM user and it clearly has its advantages but the classic disadvantages are also quite obvious and quite real...primarily A) HIGHLY limited geography where current services are available and often very sparse traffic...all depending on location and time of day.RC is a viable solution to both those problems so there is no "sorry" X is better than Y.If you want "close to real" ATC interaction anywhere in the world you want to fly at any time of day or night, then VATSIM is not a solution AT ALL.If you don't care where you fly and don't mind sometimes sparse radio traffic but require live human being...and generally quite realistic... ATC interaction, then RC is not a solution AT ALL.But there are vastly varying user needs and desires in between which is why there is a market for both products.I am a RW pilot too and am not "defending" RC because I don't use it due to the much debated "computer voice issue." Others seem to "get used to it" but I don't WANT to get used to it. But when the voices are improved to suit my own personal tastes, I would be an RC user in a hearbeat.Regards,Jim
Posted 28 August 2006 - 07:23 PM
>>Sometimes I just feel like flying with Radar Conctact 4 and>having lot's of AI traffic around me. I can just sit there on>the tarmac watching all the buzy traffic rolling by and feel>like I'm actually a part of a big flow. While the voices with>Radar Contact 4 are still quite robotic, you get used to it>after a while.>>>>And thatis just it. Sitting there watching the planes KNOWING they arent real is about as fun as watching paint dry. Isnt any fun in that. Seems like everything is replacing the human element. Sorry but as a real world pilot vatsim is the only way to go.
Posted 28 August 2006 - 07:20 PM
Hi Ron,I think he meant in VATSIM as compared to RC!Hope this helps,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://www.fseconomy.com/
Live Well, Laugh Often, Love Much
Live Well, Laugh Often, Love Much
Posted 28 August 2006 - 06:56 AM
>I can just pause my sim while I visit the>toilet or get a 'cuppa', answer the telephone.>Therefore, R.C. is much, much better and much more sociable>for the majority of users.>Well, I wouldn't say plain "better" but in some situations it suits my needs better! :) As for the toilet or 'cuppa' (whiskey in my case when I fly online :) ) all you have to do is say that you are off the air for a few minutes. Granted, when on final it doesn't work that well to be "off the air" but usually there are some stints where nothing happens for quite a while. Unfortunately flying online and "honey, can you come and..." is totally uncompatible and usually the latter has to win..
Posted 28 August 2006 - 04:04 AM
You>cannot just leave the flightsimulator unattended or paused>like you could with Radar Conctact, because a real ATC person>is expecting you to respond.My point entirely. I can just pause my sim while I visit the toilet or get a 'cuppa', answer the telephone.Therefore, R.C. is much, much better and much more sociable for the majority of users.What a shame that M.S. didn't attempt to improve the FSX ATC. Thanks to 'Radar Contact' we will have a great program to use with it.I wonder if 'A.T+T' voices would help?
Posted 28 August 2006 - 01:27 AM
I totally agree with Ron!Sometimes I just feel like flying with Radar Conctact 4 and having lot's of AI traffic around me. I can just sit there on the tarmac watching all the buzy traffic rolling by and feel like I'm actually a part of a big flow. While the voices with Radar Contact 4 are still quite robotic, you get used to it after a while.Then again sometimes I want the rush you get when you talk to a real human being acting as ATC. You KNOW that there is somebody watching all your moves, and they are responding to what you are actually saying in the headset, not when you press the keys "1" or "7" like you do in Radar Contact. You cannot just leave the flightsimulator unattended or paused like you could with Radar Conctact, because a real ATC person is expecting you to respond.I do chose my departure and arrival airports based on where I find ATC coverage but in Europe you very seldom have problem finding airports with at least tower and approach online and the centers (or radar as we say in Europe) manned in between.And then I may go back to Radar Contact when I want to fly to/from a more unusual airport that would lack ATC coverage in VATSIM. Or when I simply don't want to go through all the fuzz off setting up VATSIM. Or when I actually do want to be abole to leave the flightsimulator for a while when inflight.
Posted 27 August 2006 - 10:47 PM
I would like to suggest that there is room for both types of ATC simulation. Depending on the user's schedule and the availability of on-line controllers that certainly could work out. When controllers and traffic are not up to the requested density then RC could fit the bill along with a good AI traffic generator and weather application RC might be the best fit.For initial training a newbie might be intimidated by a real world controller. RC is still quite demanding but the user is dealing with a "private" ATC simulation. It certainly can make a good training aid and then use it or on-line controllers for a best fit to the usedr schedule.Different strokes for different folks as one movie character used to say.
KMSP Minnesota, Land of 10,000 Puddles