I have downloaded it and started to read its manual. This has raised a question I would like to ask people who has been using this plane.Since it's a russian plane it instruments use SI units i.e meters km/h. In FS ATC (and RC) assigns altitudes in feet and speeds in knots. Also altimeters is adjusted using QFE not QNH.Do you experience this as problem? I mean if things get busy and you are assigned altitudes that needs to converted and will end up as strange uneven value on the altimeter?

Yes, Russia, China and some other countries use meters and km/h, I'm still hoping one of the ATC Addons like RC4 or PFE might implement this in a future version. In the Tu-154M, you can change the digital altimeter between meters and feet indication. Regarding speeds, it's a matter of getting used to it. Similar than travelling to other country and get rental car with km/h or mph (whatever is applicable to you).Additionally you can install a kt indication : http://www.protu-154.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4491And using QFE or QNH, it's just up to you. Mike

A revamped FS ATC is something I would really like to see. SID's STARS's for flyable and AI, speed/alt restrictions, different accents in different regions, feet/meter Flightlevels.

regardsEdaka Capt. P[/font color]i[/font color]c[/font color]a[/font color]s[/font color]s[/font color]o[/font color]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/edetroit100/Ed3.jpgMy FS9 Videos] AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1024Mb PC3200 DDR, 300Gb HD 256Mb DDR Nvidia 7800 GTX PCI-E, Audigy 2 ZSViewsonic VP2130b 21.3" LCD[/font color

Radar Contact sounds like it's right up your alley then. Default ATC is a joke, radar contact is much closer to reality.

well since this absolutely horrid forum software from 1993 won't let me edit my post, I'll just have to make a new one to say that Radar Contact does some of what you're wishing for, but not all. still, it's much better than default ATC.

I purchased RC4 and it certainly did not cut the mustard.I prefer the default ATC, primarily because one can update callsigns with editvoicepak.RC4 callsigns list is very limited...and as Airlines are constantly changing. I can see RC4 will not be for me unless it is possible to update callsigns etc oneself.

regardsEdaka Capt. P[/font color]i[/font color]c[/font color]a[/font color]s[/font color]s[/font color]o[/font color]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/edetroit100/Ed3.jpgMy FS9 Videos] AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1024Mb PC3200 DDR, 300Gb HD 256Mb DDR Nvidia 7800 GTX PCI-E, Audigy 2 ZSViewsonic VP2130b 21.3" LCD[/font color

>I purchased RC4 and it certainly did not cut the mustard.>>I prefer the default ATC, primarily because one can update>callsigns with editvoicepak.>>RC4 callsigns list is very limited...and as Airlines are>constantly changing. I can see RC4 will not be for me unless>it is possible to update callsigns etc oneself.Interesting - I'm exactly the opposite. I don't really care about whether or not my ATC has all the world's airlines available by name - but more realistic procedures are something I do value which I think RC4 is fairly good for, but not perfect. there are some areas which could use improvement such as following missed approach procedures, and minimum vectoring altitudes. VFR ATC would be nice as would real taxi instructions.

Well I love my AI so I need callsigns. BTW the first time I tried RC4 I was in a First Choice 767 (a well known airline) RC4 did not know the callsign ...so not even AI and not even a rare callsign.If one is not interested in AI or callsigns just realistic procedures ...may I suggest VATSIM? ;)

regardsEdaka Capt. P[/font color]i[/font color]c[/font color]a[/font color]s[/font color]s[/font color]o[/font color]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/edetroit100/Ed3.jpgMy FS9 Videos] AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1024Mb PC3200 DDR, 300Gb HD 256Mb DDR Nvidia 7800 GTX PCI-E, Audigy 2 ZSViewsonic VP2130b 21.3" LCD[/font color

>Well I love my AI so I need callsigns. BTW the first time I>tried RC4 I was in a First Choice 767 (a well known airline)>RC4 did not know the callsign ...so not even AI and not even a>rare callsign.>>If one is not interested in AI or callsigns just realistic>procedures ...may I suggest VATSIM? ;)

>regards>Yeah I've been reading through the vatsim documents lately, probably will try it soon. One problem though is that I've got a little one who sleeps directly below my computer room, and I do almost all of my flying at night when he's asleep, so I'd need to make sure I'm not waking him up when communicating with VATSIM controllers.