Comment about Radar Contact 3

[Guest]

Hello,I was reading a thread below pertaining to AVSIM's latest review of Radar Contact 3 and wanted to make a couple of comments. I do agree with the reviewer's author and several users observations following up that the RC3 controller voice set leaves a LOT to be desired. The quality is very poor and the simulated background static is way overdone. Modern avionics with quality headsets even in small GA aircraft produce quite clear communications in the real world. This poor quality, coupled with the controller voices having a rainbow of international accents, really brings RC3 down a few rungs. It's just plain goofy to be taking off from Scottsdale, Arizona and be talking to an Italian controller in the tower. It kills the realism all over the place.Scott Campell replied in a thread below that he was working on a volunteer basis to produce the voice sets for RC3 and he did not have access to professional grade recording equipment. Perfectly understandable BUT - guess what? Radar Contact 3 is a COMMERCIAL PROGRAM. They are charging $44.00, almost equal to the total price of purchasing the entire FS2002 program itself. It is in my opinion inexcusable for the profit making entities associated with RC3 to HAVE NOT MADE THE EFFORT TO PRODUCE HIGH QUALITY, DIVERSIFIED, INTERNATIONALLY CORRECT VOICESETS. :) Guys at RC3, you're in business, this isn't a community freeware project that folks are expected to volunteer their services to enhance your product. It's not anyone else's responsibility but yours to actually go out and HIRE (as in PAY) individuals to record scripts for you :) This is called a business expense and by golly, sometimes you just gotta have em no matter how hard you try not to. :) I've heard RC3 developers repeatedly lament about how noone would volunteer to make voicesets for them and that this is the reason for the limited selection with the Heinz 57 array of international accents. Geez, that's a great philosophy, lol. RC3 developers, did you ever think to maybe put an ad in your local paper and maybe, eerr, ummmm, well PAY individuals to record scripts for you? Do you know how many college kids there are that would have been thrilled to death to get paid $20 bucks to just have to sit down for three hours and record their voices? Are you not a for profit entity? Do you have a right to expect the public at large to contribute to your own revenue production without a piece of the pie? You guys were being a little too cheap/greedy in this regard. Proflight 2000 developers at least put out a public offer to deliver free versions of their software to individuals who would record voicesets for them. Guess what? A little incentive goes a long way.I don't think GM can get away with posting a quarterly loss report to their shareholders with the confident excuse that they couldn't get enough people to volunteer to build parts for the cars for free. :) See what I'm driving at?RC3 was essentially released incomplete in this regard with a very wrong attitude from it's developers about what consumers have the right to expect from an expensive add-on. On a positive note, the ATC features of RC3 are great, including very precise vectoring logic :) The quality of FS2002 AI interaction is debatable but without an SDK from the boneheads in Redmond I don't fault RC3 for that. My fingers are getting sore from typing now, I have to go take a break :)

[Guest]

>I've heard RC3 developers repeatedly lament about how noone >would volunteer to make voicesets for them and that this is >the reason for the limited selection with the Heinz 57 array >of international accents. Geez, that's a great philosophy, >lol. RC3 developers, did you ever think to maybe put an ad >in your local paper and maybe, eerr, ummmm, well PAY >individuals to record scripts for you? Do you know how >many college kids there are that would have been thrilled to >death to get paid $20 bucks to just have to sit down for >three hours and record their voices? Are you not a for >profit entity? Do you have a right to expect the public at >large to contribute to your own revenue production without a >piece of the pie? LOL, good point Anakin. You have flair for bringing out some issues that have been delt with yet. Congradulations on your recent marriage and sorry to hear about your arm.

[Guest Tim13]

Most community colleges and a lot of high schools around the US have radio/television/recording studios that I'm sure could be had at a reasonable cost.Just a thought.Tim13

[Mike S KPDX 597]

I feel a strong sense here that I must stand up and defend RC at this point. So, I am!"...the simulated background static is way overdone"What??? the traffic that was recorded I will bet is exactly what was heard in the real traffic transmission. Simulated static - I doubt it."this isn't a community freeware project that folks are expected to volunteer their services to enhance your product"This one is my particular favorite. RC comes with I think in excess of 10 voice sets, MSFS2k2 came with how many default aircraft? How many freeware aircraft have you downloaded? Alas you may be correct, therefore I am writing to MS that they must include such aircraft to the level of the following freeware: Dash8 (Oleksiy Frolov), 747 (MelJet), Falcon (Yannick Lavigne), ATR (S

[Guest]

Mike, My point regarding the controller voice sets is that I feel that a commercial product should have had a better structure - the 10 included voice sets are a combination of international accents that degrade realism, as I mentioned above. I feel that the developers could have and should have made a concerted effort to put forth a better product in this regard. The chatter files do indeed sound realistic as they are actual ATC transmissions. My only criticism here is that the chatter files are the same ones from Radar Contact version 2. Might not some effort have been made to secure a wider variety of ATC chatter guys? As was mentioned in other threads, the chatter itself, while very realistic, gets redundant over multiple flights. One starts to hear the same phrases over and over, especially on ground frequencies. Just a little bit of effort from the developer's side could have added some pleasing diversity and enhanced realism. The controller voice sets are a different breed of cat and I feel the quality of these sets is inferior and not well done. Static effects were recorded into these voicesets and were a little overdone in my impression. RC3 does have a wonderful ATC capability, I never said anything against that. I just feel that issues with the voicesets needs to be addressed.Comparing RC3 to MSF2002 in terms of features overall is like compares Apples to Watermelons. No, FS2002 doesn't come with a huge fleet of aircraft out of the box but in encompasses the entire world in elevated mesh terrain, along with buildings, roads, cities, rivers, a weather engine, ect, ect. One can't really make a comparision fairly. I do find that certain add-on products have a cult type loyalty among some users and criticism just won't be tolerated though, lol. As I said, I like RC3 but it could have certainly been more polished regarding the voiceset subject.

[Guest]

Anakin,"Guess what? A little incentive goes a long way"How about this for an incentive...Ask for a refund and it shall be given. Then you will be happy and you can move on. What a deal!david

[Guest]

David, I don't want a refund for goodness sakes. I like RC3 overall. I'm just saying the product could have been more 'polished around the edges'. The core ATC capability with RC3 is wonderful.I hope criticism is always taken constructively, I'm not trying to get up on a soapbox and just drag RC3 through the mud for kicks. But if developers never get any objective feedback on where they can improve their products and/or if an angry mob forms whenever somebody voices something critical, then how will advances ever be made?

[Mike S KPDX 597]

ok, I will back off a bit here too, my thoughts>My point regarding the controller voice sets is that I feel >that a commercial product should have had a better structure >- the 10 included voice sets are a combination of >international accents that degrade realism, as I mentioned >above. I feel that the developers could have and should >have made a concerted effort to put forth a better product >in this regard. I think this product is meant to appeal to an international market. I do know that the quantity of 'north american' accents in the ver 2 was one of the most downgrading remarks put forth by users of that version. Here JD and crew have responded directly to the user request for those who fly in other countries. I too was puzzled by this but I understood it, I have therefore renamed some of the international accent diretories as I fly only in the US>>The chatter files do indeed sound realistic as they are >actual ATC transmissions. My only criticism here is that >the chatter files are the same ones from Radar Contact >version 2. Might not some effort have been made to secure >a wider variety of ATC chatter guys? As was mentioned in >other threads, the chatter itself, while very realistic, >gets redundant over multiple flights. One starts to hear >the same phrases over and over, especially on ground >frequencies. Just a little bit of effort from the >developer's side could have added some pleasing diversity >and enhanced realism. I do have to agree on this with you. I was also disapointed that the chatter was that from ver 2. A new set would have been much better, WITH the ability to add the sets from ver 2 (via download) for a greater experience. BTW, one of my very first comments to JD was the fact that some of the ATC exchanges that he utilized would never be heard by the pilot (only a few controller to controller exchanges)>>The controller voice sets are a different breed of cat and I >feel the quality of these sets is inferior and not well >done. Static effects were recorded into these voicesets >and were a little overdone in my impression. I believe these are better than version 2 and have not heard anything about 'static overlays' on this set. I am curious as I have recorded a set of controller wavs and no mention of this technique has been made. I think that we have become used to the very elegant MS ATC verbiage and this contrast heavily with the RC type. Even though that is not an excuse, it is a possible explaination, however I find these voice sets acceptable.>>RC3 does have a wonderful ATC capability, I never said >anything against that. I just feel that issues with the >voicesets needs to be addressed. possibly with the release of an SDK, I really look forward to seeing what MS will do with ATC in the next version.>>Comparing RC3 to MSF2002 in terms of features overall is >like compares Apples to Watermelons. No, FS2002 doesn't >come with a huge fleet of aircraft out of the box but in >encompasses the entire world in elevated mesh terrain, along >with buildings, roads, cities, rivers, a weather engine, >ect, ect. One can't really make a comparision fairly. I make the comparison as to the fact that MSFS2k2 is in essence for most of us a 'base' product to be built upon by both freeware and payware. RC I feel is the same base product. For example, would you be adverse to paying $15.00US for a CD that contains 12 controller and 5 pilot US accent voice sets plus 7 meg worth of US chatter? An enhancement just like the Dreamfleet 737 product is to MSFS. >>I do find that certain add-on products have a cult type >loyalty among some users and criticism just won't be >tolerated though, lol. As I said, I like RC3 but it could >have certainly been more polished regarding the voiceset >subject. I like the product but I dont like to think of myself as a cult follower. I do understand your comments and opinions, and respect that. I think your last sentence is the most concise and informative.

[Guest Scott Campbell]

Anakin,This whole thread really needs to go into the RC forum where your concerns can be addressed.They simply can't be addressed in the FS forum.So please repost there, and your issues will be discussed.