Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

flyinpilot212121

Serious thoughts on rc4

Recommended Posts

Ive searched but come up with nothing, Im seriously considering rc4 as its the only thing left missing in my fs9( I have ground enhancements, activesky, flight environment, a bunch of scenry installed, and just recently mastered the pmdg 747). Its just such an expensive program so i was looking for some serious thoughts about it.Thanks

Share this post


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

It's a tremendous product. It controls your flight very sensibly, you can stick to flight plans as filed, no more being vectored to timbuktoo. It can handle SIDS and STARS and a variety of different types of approach/landing. It's v (nerdily) realistic, the level of detail compared to the default ATC is incredible. It's not as intimidating as VATSIM, but it can be nearly! It's even got some really funny soundbites in it when you mess up.Have a look at the documentation they've put on their website, it's very comprehensive and will give you a good idea whether or not you want to buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't fly IFR without it. It won't do anything for a VFR flight though (they are working on that for the upcomming RC5). Most of my trips are IFR, even in nice weather. Rolling out on the localizer just outside the marker and perfectly separated from the traffic in front of me is routine with RC. If you have some experience in RW aviation, it will make the learning curve much easier as it adheres to RW procedures quite realistically. This makes anticipating what will come next alot easier. Like any add-on, it has some shortcomings due to FS limitations, but there are no issues that would make me look for an alternative. RC4 is definately in the "must have" catagory for me. The cost of add-ons has certainly increased over the past year but, this is one that doesn't disappoint. I've spent the same or more on things that are now in the "sorry I even looked at it" catagory. I put RC4 up there with ASv6.5, or the registered version of FSUIPC, as things I can't live without in FS.Best Regards,Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A vote for RC from me. Couldn't 'fly' without it, although Bill Stevens and I know each other quite (too?) well!Cheers, SLuggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is good but you will need a reasonably fast setup as it is very demanding on the system:-cool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been a user of RC for many years now. It's a very good programme, definitely a must have for any serious simmer.One of the developers works as a real life ATC controller so as you can expect the procedures and phraseology are very accurate (although with a US slant). It does its job very well indeed and does a lot to add to the immersion. The developers are active on their forum here and are very responsive to customer feedback. They genuinely listen to their customers and try to implement customer requested features in new versions when possible.However it does have its limitations:Callsigns - there are lots of callsigns in RC4 but still nowhere near as many as you get with Editvoicepack. If you have comprehensive AI packages installed don't expect RC to speak the callsigns for many smaller airlines and companines (especially outside the US).RC4 has very little interaction with AI aircraft on the ground, on many occasions I found myself being run over by an AI aircraft when taxying, although this seems to have improved a lot with the updates.As the previous poster said, it does nothing for VFR.There are quite a few voices available, but the majority are US accented and it does kind of spoil the immersion when flying into somewhere like Hong Kong and the controllers all have American accents!The voices can sound a little robotic at times, this has improved dramatically since the initial release of RC4, but it's still not perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the re[lies. Looks like its a winner.P.S Is it really a big ressource hog?Thanks again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not for me. I have a 3.0Ghz 4 year old machine with a very old video card, and 1GB of memory. I also run AS6.5 and FSP on all my flights and get my locked fps of 26 consistently. RC is a must for me. In fact, it is so good I sometimes have to ask for a full IAP approach just to make sure I can still do IFR on my own. My biggest complaint is the lack of ground traffic control, but that's really only a problem at busy airports. You just have to sequence yourself. IF you fly INTO places like ORD or EWR with 100% AI you will be amazed that you will be able to land without a plane on the runway or one giving you a buzz haircut as it flys over you to the same runway. RC will also initiate weather/traffic holds on your approach if you want even more realism. Flying into JFK or EWR with that option set almost always results in a traffic hold. Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Thanks for all the re[lies. Looks like its a winner.>>P.S Is it really a big ressource hog?>>Thanks againNo, not really. I've found that the best performance comes for me when RC lives and runs on a hard drive different from the one FS is on. This seems to smooth things out a bit as every interaction with controllers requires the drive to search and find the necessary WAV files. With everything on one drive you're having to compete for search and load time with FS and whatever other add-ons you may have running. With two drives, one can handle FS stuff while the other is devoted to RC, and both drives can work simultaneously.Hope that makes sense.Regards,Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it is a 'resource hog' as you put it.With detailed scenery my system grinds to a halt with it.I am also disappointed with the relatively few voices with other than US accents. One would hope that in future more accents would be made available and could be incorporated in new versions or downloaded for those with older versions.The fact that it is of little value for VFR flights is disappointing too. The latter,however,is pointed out by the developers.If you have a good system and predominantly fly IFR in the US then it is excellent. The developer support is also excellent.Maybe I need to get an external HD to run it for all flights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be a good time/place to ask this question. I tried to set up a flight from KLAX to KSAN with two small California airports as waypoints: KLAX CA24 37CA KSAN. This flightplan was transfered to my Garman(sic)500 GPS but on my RC4 plan the 2 califorinia airports were not picked up and it listed my flight plan straight from KLAX to KSAN. Why wouldn't RC4 pick up the two small airports as "waypoints"? jerrycwo4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RC is a very good product and is much better than the default ATC. Since there is no alternative in the "high fidelity" ATC market (except VATSIM) it is a "must have".RC adds the ability to fly SIDs, STARs, gives more realistic ATC instructions, and options for diversions, etc. It is MUCH closer to real ATC than the default FS9, atc, and as real as you will get until you hit VATSIM, which has severe limitations.That said, RC has drawbacks:-No ground traffic control OR taxi instructions to AI-STARS are not realitically implemented. You have to ask to fly the STAR where in real life you would not, it is a part of your flightplan and ATC will expect you to fly it unless pulled off. RC leaves you alone to fly the STAR with no altitude guidance, in real-life this would not happen when flying into Class B or C airport you would get altitude direction.-Pilot's Discretion always - RC seems to always give pilot's discretion decents, this is not at all realistic especially when flying into congested airspace.-AI Interaction with RC is VERY limited. ATC calls are restricted to AI traffic contacting the centers. RC deletes the altitude and vector directions to AI-For some reason, RC does not recognize 'heavy' callsigns for AI so an AI 747 will not get the heavy designation, but your aircraft will. I did an AVSIM review of RC a few years back so you can read my findings, I gave them a Gold Star because the product is very good.SO, at the end of the day, it is a must-have but be aware that it does have limitations. One of which is the fact that if you have an aging computer, it will cause some stuttering as it compiles ATC messages on the fly. If you have a relatively up-to-date rig, this should not be an issue for you.HTH,Mike T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry,<>Airports cannot be used as waypoints. You have to use VORs, NDBs and intersections. If you have FS Navigator you can also include virtual intersections in your plan such as N50000W015000 and RC will happily accept it.Show me any serious flight planner that allows airports to be used as valid waypoints. I'm not sure any exist.Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the resources comments - I use RC4 on a networked PC .... works a real treat, easy to set up and install (does require Pete Dowson's WideFS), and absolutely no hit on the FS PC doing it this way.Other MASSIVE advantage is that you get the "ATC only" sound out of the seperate PC (ie... independent to the FS sounds of the aircraft, etc). So you can have the FS PCs sound coming out of your speakers, and the ATC sound from RC4 on headphones from the networked PC = highly realistic.The only reason I don't use RC4 now is because I got hooked on flying on line (FS9 = VATSIM) and (FSX = IVAO). All flying is now on-line.But if you don't like or aren't ready for on-line flying, RC4 is the way to go, and better on a networked PC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RC4 does have competition. ProFlight Emulator.Biggest question I have is which of these is the better one, but dunno if that would be hijacking this thread....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I'd clarify some things about SIDS and STARS:If the waypoints of SIDS and STARS are included in the flight plan, you will be expected to fly them. About 40 nm out from destination approach will contact you. It is then you can request an IAP if you wish to navigate on your own all the way to final. If not you'll get vectors to standard patterns to intersect a straight in localizer. Regarding SIDS, if the first waypoint is within thirty nm of departure, you'll get a clearance of "as filed" meaning to navigate on your own crossing your filed waypoints- you'll still get an initial altitude assignment. You can also select this as an option.For flexibility on departure and arrival altitudes, you can use the NOTAMS option. This requires you to deviate from commanded altitudes without reproach but still get guidance from ATC.If you use an FMC (LNAV) or GPS to fly SIDS and STARS I recommend using an external flight planner outside of FS that exports plan formats for FS9 and your FMC/GPS. These planners have databases of these procedures and expand them to waypoints on export. By importing these plans into RC and your navigation avionics (CO-ROUTE in a Boeing FMC) RC and your nav equipment see the same waypoints. This avoids the problem where a navigation instrument's built in procedure database differs from the waypoints in the flight plan causing ATC to think you are off course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I am also disappointed with the relatively few voices with>other than US accents. One would hope that in future more>accents would be made available and could be incorporated in>new versions or downloaded for those with older versions.Jon Dekker has said that he would put a lot of other accents on if he could get enough volunteers to record the WAV files. He has mostly US, next comes UK, a South African, an Australian and just a handful from mainland Europe.Be warned though! If you volunteer, there are a heck of a lot of files to record! :-) Iain Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering if anyone knows how it would run onAMD athlon 64 X2 Dual core processor 1.7ghz1024 mb ram100gb hardrivege force Go6100running vista 32 bitactiveskyground and flight environmentultimate terrain canada and usapmdg 747, 737level d sim 767This is my ssytem which is a laptop, so as i understand it there is not really any option to upgrade the hardware in it, and buying a new system is out of the question.Thank you very much for your input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,With only 1Gb of RAM on a machine running Vista and heavyweight aircraft like the PMDG I'm surprised you can run FS9 effectively.However, if you add another 1Gb of RAM and don't run any Ai packages such as Ultimate Traffic or MyTraffic then RC should be okay.It's when you add lots of Ai and fly into big airports RC is put under heavy load. Avoid those on modest machines are you'll be fine.Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites