Sign in to follow this  
Geofa

First Non-Biased Radar Contact Review

Recommended Posts

This review on Avsim by Pardave Lehry is the only review I have read of Radar Contact 3.0 that mentions the "ugly" sounding voices, and the lack of intergration with the default AI.I own RC3.0, and like the improvement fuctionality over the default, but those voices are tuff, and hard to get used to.What, none of the other reviewers noticed the voices and lack of integration with the default AI...yea right!Good job Pardave!Tony in Miami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Pardave's review was balanced and thorough, true enough. The way I loudly described the ATC voices on the AVSIM Radar Contact Forum was not quite so polite. In RC3, you are the only one on the frequency. So, for example, on the taxi-way in front of you, you might see an AI aircraft. Not a scintilla of conversation is heard between the ground controller and that aircraft. Same for landing and departing AI on the tower freq. At least in the simulated ATC in FS2002, that if I'm told to hold short, I'll usually know the reason because, for example, I heard the tower give landing clearance. I look out the window and sure enough, headed in my direction, is an aircraft.Also in RC3, the AM communications channel background noise is not modeled correctly. An AM (amplitude modulated) communications channel has a distinct characteristic which is lacking in the RC3 recordings. M$ made a good attempt at replicating this including even some "same room chatter" and squelch pops. I recall an interview with one of the M$ managers at the AVSIM convention. In that he said the ATC voices were one of the hardest things in FS2002 to get right.My advice is this. Upon the web somewhere (I've lost the site) is an downloadable file containing a sample of what RC3 controller sounds like. After you hear how it sounds and then if you don't mind being the only one on the frequency, then buy the program. It certainly offers a more realistic ATC experience. But for me, these two problems are application killers.I hope somehow JD (the developer) can fix these problems but without M$ help, that will be hard to do.Larry JonesFlorence, MT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 days ago i started testing a new version of fsuipc, that gives me ground traffic information. (before i was limited to airborne traffic only). i'm looking into a number of possible usages for that information. i'm sure a few have crossed your mind.in the manual, there is a whole section on how to use ms atc, to listen to ground chatter which is pertinent to the planes around you. you can always turn rc's chatter to zero, and just listen to ms atc. but don't start a dialog with them ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry,And if you recall, what I said is that there is no way to control that AI traffic, so talking to them is irrelevant. Until MS puts out an SDK that describes, at least in a small way, how AI are directed, there's no point to making up chatter with them, because there's no way to know what it's doing.However, since Peter Dowson and JD have come up with a clever way of seeing that ground traffic, at least RC will be able to tell you when it's in your way - just like if it's in the sky in your way.As for the voices - we are all familiar with the "Robots on Crack" comment.When I have the budget M$ has, I'll have a lot better wavs made by professional people in a professional recording studio, with my control of how it's done. I don't. They aren't. I work for free and every set is from a volunteer.You are perfectly welcome to make up a set of recordings, process them, and send them to me. I'll put them onto my supplementary page for everyone to enjoy. This goes for anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony,I don't understand why this topic is titled "First non-biased review..." All the reviews so far are from people not associated in any way with JDT LLC, JD, Doug, or RC.How is this the only non-biased review?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that this is the first review that gave a useful review of RCv3, both the good and bad. Pardave Lehry provided good feedback with information potential buyers need to know before they shell out their hard earned money. Thanks Pardave! I think your comments are right on the money.Personally, my biggest disappointment with RCv3 is the lack of integration with MS AI traffic. This is particularly evident on the ground when taxiing and waiting for take off. I am also frustrated hearing RCv3 and MS voices at the same time on some frequencies (like ATIS).I can put up with the mechanical voices speaking slowly. I don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> I am also frustrated hearing RCv3 and MS voices at the same >time on some frequencies (like ATIS). set your com2 radio as active instead of com1 and when you use RC to tune to ATIS, you won't hear the MS voices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>When I have the budget M$ has, I'll have a lot better wavs >made by professional people in a professional recording Scott, I also use the Fly! series of simulators and Marc Schrier developed a freeware program called C4TO, the voices are smooth flowing and sound almost perfect. BTW, great news about that ground AI traffic, and how it's coming along.Trust me ,I enjoy RC3, just disappointed with certain aspects.But I guess nothing is perfect!Thanks, for listeningTony in Miami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JD, you are a stand-up guy and I truly appreciate it.BTW,I am glad you are making progress on the ground traffic AI!Thanks for great customer service,Tony in Miami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course reality and accuracy are in the mind of the user.There are many things ms atc does better (especially for smaller Ga aircraft), and there are many things Radar Contact does better.I would however recommend buying Radar contact-it adds a lot to msfs.I find now, depending on the flight I am going to do, sometimes I use fs atc and sometimes I use Rc.My wish is that somehow we could have one program that would do what both do.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Built in FS2002 ATC is tons better for most GA flights than is RC3. RC3 is great for airline type IFR flights though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Built in FS2002 ATC is tons better for most GA flights than >is RC3. RC3 is great for airline type IFR flights though. I'd have to disagree with part of your statement. FS2k2 is pretty good for VFR GA flights, but it is terrible for IFR GA flights. RC3 is not just for the big birds when it comes to IFR. I fly only GA aircraft and file IFR almost all the time using RC3 for ATC, except when doing bush flights.Bottom line, besides the voice issues, RC3 is far superior than FS2k2 ATC for any IFR flying.My 5 cents worth (inflation ;))Bradley Dykes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to get in the middle-but here are a few areas where I actually like the fs atc for ga ifr flying which is also what I use it for.Ms atc has:A) Call ups from Ga ramps instead of gates ( a small point but calling from 14 or being instructed to taxi to 12 when landing):( Taxi instructions including taxiways-the part I always find the hardest about real flying!C) Handoffs to real named centers with real handoff boundries. e.g. Takeoff from my home airport of fnt,-handed to Lansing approach-the Kazo approach etc. at the right times- vs. a generic approach or centerD) Vectoring for the approach that is a typical distance for ga aircraft vs. jets (jet drivers complain about this in msatc but for ga I find it about right).E) The above mentioned Ai traffic and voice troublesThere are some other minor issues with both, and again it is what one considers more represents reality.I have tried the same flight with both-and of course Rc will issue random holds (although in 12 years of ifr ga flying I have yet to experience one except in practice situatons), has emergencies, requesting of individual approaches (although all but the ils have to be done on your own). It has other neat things like remote communications, ability to call fss etc.Again-both have their pluses and both have their minuses-but for the typical Ga trip I actually find myself prefering msfs at this point-but I usually end up using each about 50% of the time depending on the type of flight I am going to take. I also wish in a spoiled fashion I could have the best both has to offer in one program!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this