RC4 rocks.The problems described are to be found between the chair and the keyboard.

Quite frankly I find your assessment of it to be way off the mark and I put that on user error, not the "awful program" Obviously, you don't get it and if you aren't willing to put any effort into even going to a forum where the developer himself is ALWAYS ready and willing to help then you have no one to blame but yourself, not the program... BTW, once you are cleared for the STAR you are supposed to fly the vectors yourself... That is why it is an Approach procedure... :( Once established depending on your co-pilot mode he will automatically contact tower for you. Yes, it does do line up and wait, it even regionalizes it to position and hold or line up and wait with a regional accent based on where you are flying along with a lot of other things. :( To compare it to default ATC just goes to show how little time or effort you put into PFE. To me it seems like a big fat case of RTFM but to each their own and I wish you the best with RC4. Just don't come and bash a program when you clearly aren't interested in getting help or even understanding your problems... -P

Here here. Couldn't agree more. PURE user error.I have both, and enjoy them both.

I'm not quite sure what help you expect me to get. I'm not an incompetent numpty with no clue - I've tried many flights and really wanted to like it, hell I just paid a load of money for it, I've got an incentive.At one particular airport I try tuning to ATIS, right at the beginning of a flight, and get nothing. Just that airport, no others (that I've found anyway.) As for the STAR, well you misunderstand - I had my flight plan routed to fly the STAR as per the instructions (SIDs work ok, so I'm pretty sure I've followed them correctly) and I did fly the STAR vectors, but PFE still told me I was off course. A few mins later PFE pops up to give me vectors (well, ONE vector) as described above, with no decent instructions, which were utterly useless.Perhaps if I spent more time adjusting waypoint altitudes and general fiddling around with the flight plan I'd get better results. However, the whole point of ATC is to direct traffic, and if all PFE does is take the flight plan I give it and tell me to fly it verbatim then honestly, what's the point - my FMC already does that for me.

For those of you using PFE regularly, what flight planner are you using? I just flew a flight in FS9 from DCA to Buffalo. I really enjoyed the ATC but PFE still starts my descent phase too late. I even tried requesting a lower altitude but as soon as I contacted the next center, it wanted me to return to my original cruise altitude. How do you guys determine where your top of Descent is going to be? BTW, I'm using FS Build for flight planning.

I'm not quite sure what help you expect me to get. I'm not an incompetent numpty with no clue - I've tried many flights and really wanted to like it, hell I just paid a load of money for it, I've got an incentive.

You should obviously cool down and give it another try. It seems to me you're not fully understanding what it is even SUPPOSED to do.

At one particular airport I try tuning to ATIS, right at the beginning of a flight, and get nothing. Just that airport, no others (that I've found anyway.)

That may be a one-off that would be resolved if you notified the author about it. Never ran into one myself.

As for the STAR, well you misunderstand - I had my flight plan routed to fly the STAR as per the instructions (SIDs work ok, so I'm pretty sure I've followed them correctly) and I did fly the STAR vectors, but PFE still told me I was off course. A few mins later PFE pops up to give me vectors (well, ONE vector) as described above, with no decent instructions, which were utterly useless.

What are you actually trying to do? There is no such thing as "STAR vectors". In PFE you either to fly the STAR or get vectoring - not both. The idea of is to line you up with the final approach. The way it works in PFE is it will stop following your course after the final waypoint in your flightplan. After that, if you fly a STAR, it's up to you how you line yourself with the runway, you can fly chandelles and lazy eights if you want, PFE will not monitor you until your on final. Why? It's nearly impossible to have all the STARs of the world in the PFE database.If you opt for vectoring, PFE will vector you to final after your last flight plan waypoint and assign altitudes.

Perhaps if I spent more time adjusting waypoint altitudes and general fiddling around with the flight plan I'd get better results.

Very likely. Also, I'm sure Dave is hard at work trying to streamline the flight plan creation part and make it more hassle free.

However, the whole point of ATC is to direct traffic, and if all PFE does is take the flight plan I give it and tell me to fly it verbatim then honestly, what's the point - my FMC already does that for me.

Not true. The point of ATC is to maintain separation and smooth traffic flow, not navigate airplanes - that is up to you and your nav equipment. What do you expect te ATC to do? Randomly deviate from your flightplan? Of course you need to fly it verbatim. I'd like to see random direct-to's though, now you need to ask for them yourself. But that applies to both programs.If you mean vertical navigation, you can always ask for a different level or earlier descent.It's true though that Radar Contact will calculate the zero wind TOD and start talking you down, where in PFE you need to calculate it in your submitted flightplan waypoint by waypoint, which is a bit of a pain.

What ever you decide be warned that RC4 does also have a learning curve, and a big well written manual.If you have not made the effort to get through enough of PFE manual, you may face similar issues with RC4.I do have to say do, i think RC4 is easier to learn than PFE, but that may be cause PFE offers many more features than RC4 and PFE is an application that seems to do more than RC4 in general.I have RC4 and happy with it, planning to get PFE when i hav time to read the manual, for now i wait RC5 reviews.I did not really get to play around with PFE much, but i suspect RC4 is easier to use, and PFE is a bigger application that seems to do more, but a bit confusing.One thing that realy put me off PFE is this1 - PFE has two windows, i didnt really have time to find out the difference between the 22 - The manual seems to be written for those who have used older versions of PFE , and not new user.I only played with PFE for a short while, so cant give descent review, still the manual referred too much to proflight2000 the older version of PFE. And i was quite confused about what the other PFE icon you get after install is for.All in all RC4 does not expect you to know about RC3, but PFE carried way too much bargage from older versions of the product which made it quite difficult to learn, for example buttons that are no longer used are still present in the GUI, that is just not professional.I think they should go revamp PFE so that all refrences to older versions are removed from the product and the manual. Its like buying a machine where the manual says, "if you have not used our older versions this manual is not for you"Plus bits in the manual that keep refering to this and that button being obselete, but the buttons are still there in the GUI, just to confuse you. I think PFE needs a clean up.Like i said i never got as far as to fly with it, but had a play on the ground. So ill be sticking with my RC4/FsCommander combo for now.

Pro Flight EMULATOR, i.e. it helps proflight 2000 which is a FS2000 designed ATC program to work in FS9 and FSX, that's why the manual talks about Proflight 2000 and its limitations ;)Pro filight 2000 is someone else's work, not Dave's, the original developers abandoned it as far as I remember and Dave wrote the emulator to make it work in FS9 and FSX.

Pro Flight EMULATOR, i.e. it helps proflight 2000 which is a FS2000 designed ATC program to work in FS9 and FSX, that's why the manual talks about Proflight 2000 and its limitations ;)Pro filight 2000 is someone else's work, not Dave's, the original developers abandoned it as far as I remember and Dave wrote the emulator to make it work in FS9 and FSX.

Thank you very much for clearing things up, i am now very unlikely to go for PFE ever.Cause Proflight2000 is an obselete product, and PFE is based on ProFlight2000.Like i said, the PFE manual seems to expect you to know how to use ProFlight2000, and the first i ever heard of ProFlight2000 was when reading the PFE manual.Thanks for clearing up that confusion, i am now far more certain that i will be sticking with RC4. The RC4 ATC design and concept is a stand alone system that is far much easier to understand.Like i said , seems if you want to know how to use PFE, first go learn how to use Proflight2000, then go read PFE manual, i'd rather just stick with RC4 and read one manual.Maybe PFE is for FS old hands who are familiar with the ProFlight2000 legacy product, i have only been simming since 2006 so i never heard of ProFlight2000. In which case maybe RC4 is far much easier to learn than PFE, and they both do the same thing .....ATC, go figure .

Right, had a chance to play with RC4 a little. So far I would tend to agree with WarpAir's views.I've only flown one complete flight after some messing around and preliminary impressions are excellent. I flew one of the tutorial flights in a turboprop and everything just... worked.It does lack some of the functions of PFE, like taxi routing, but since I've not found the PFE taxi routing much good that's not a big problem.

What are you actually trying to do? There is no such thing as "STAR vectors". In PFE you either to fly the STAR or get vectoring - not both. The idea of is to line you up with the final approach. The way it works in PFE is it will stop following your course after the final waypoint in your flightplan. After that, if you fly a STAR, it's up to you how you line yourself with the runway, you can fly chandelles and lazy eights if you want, PFE will not monitor you until your on final. Why? It's nearly impossible to have all the STARs of the world in the PFE database.If you opt for vectoring, PFE will vector you to final after your last flight plan waypoint and assign altitudes.

What I meant was a STAR routing, not vectors, apologies. A STAR does not take you to the final approach - ATC will at the end of the STAR, or some point before it, vector you for the approach. RC4 did this perfectly for me first time - PFE was useless.

Not true. The point of ATC is to maintain separation and smooth traffic flow, not navigate airplanes - that is up to you and your nav equipment. What do you expect te ATC to do? Randomly deviate from your flightplan? Of course you need to fly it verbatim. I'd like to see random direct-to's though, now you need to ask for them yourself. But that applies to both programs.

That's what I meant by directing traffic. I don't expect random deviations - I expect vectors to final. PFE, in my experiences with it, failed in this regard.

It's true though that Radar Contact will calculate the zero wind TOD and start talking you down, where in PFE you need to calculate it in your submitted flightplan waypoint by waypoint, which is a bit of a pain.

I appreciate you have the patients to sit down and fiddle with software until it performs, and I'm glad you enjoy your purchase. I just happen to have a low tolerance of frustrating software, especially when it costs as much as PFE does and when the competition (as it would seem so far) is so much easier to get on with.

It does lack some of the functions of PFE, like taxi routing, but since I've not found the PFE taxi routing much good that's not a big problem.

For sometime i had been looking for taxi routing help besides the FSX progressive taxi, and i found the full answer and much more in Fscommander. Fscommander is a must have, its a swiss army knife compared to defualt FSX GPS.I have to add that Fscommander Taxi routing is only convinient if you have another monitor on which you can display its screen. Fscommander moving map is superb, but it offers far much more than moving map.

I wouldn't get too excited about Proflight 2000. That's just the program that creates the adventure file for Proflight Emulator.That technology has been around for probably ten years. My complaint with PFE is with the descent profile and the approach vectors. If you could merge the PFE voices with the Radar Contact proceedures, you'de have almost a perfect program. I'm going back to RC4.3 for now.

What I meant was a STAR routing, not vectors, apologies. A STAR does not take you to the final approach - ATC will at the end of the STAR, or some point before it, vector you for the approach. RC4 did this perfectly for me first time - PFE was useless.

The matter of STARs is really not that simple either.There are many kinds of arrival routes in real life. Some will take you to an intermediate point far from the airport after which you are vectored, like you said. Some are so called "transitions" that will align you with the final approach line, to transition to the actual instrument approach. Some fall in between those and most of the time you are vectored off the arrival anyway for spacing or a more direct route.So far there is no ATC program that will simulate all this variety. PFE doesn't do it, but neither does RC.Simply, PFE will look at the last enroute waypoint in your flightplan, and transition into "approach mode" from there. It does not know anything about the waypoints of the STAR you're going to fly -how could it? There are tens of thounsands of them in the world.By activating STARs from the menu or requesting one you're telling PFE that you will line yourself up with the runway independently, "transition" style, so you won't get any vectoring.As far as I know, RC does not do this any differently - it's either a STAR or vectors. Both programs do have a lot to improve in this regard to make them a little more "unpredictable".Now, if you got bad vectors from PFE, it could have been a glitch. Did it ever happen again? Did you update your PFE to the most current version? Sounds to me you tried the program once and when it was not working like real world you dumped it. Programs won't do what they are not designed to do.

RC4 all the way ! I would just add that I believe the original poster raised some valid issues he'd had and has been thoroughly bashed by some forum fascists on here. He's been accused of not reading the manual, being lazy, not understanding STARS (when he clearly does), etc, etc ........I'm just amazed and inspired that he has stayed calm and has responded sensibly and constructively to all the people here that adamant that he had no right to raise problems.I am please that you have discovered RC4, Flamin Squirrel and you have my respect for your polite, intelligent responses to the (self appointed) forum police who have been so unhelpful and unfriendly to you on this thread.Davido.

Thanks Davido.I used RC4 some more tonight and was pleased with another well vectored flight, this time in a heavy.Clearly this thread has brought up some divided views. PFE certainly has more features than RC4 which, if you can get them to work, are appealing. However, I found it a frustrating experience every time I used it, and there really is no excuse when the competition can get it right, and for less money.RC4 just works. It's easy to setup and the in flight menu options provide a simple interface with some nice touches (like going 'off frequency' to get ATIS on arrival.) After the very kind offer for a trial, I shall be sending them my money.

I really like parts of PFED. The voices are great, but I can't get past the approach vectoring. I've flown a number of flights and have not had a good experience yet when it comes to the approach. I'll keep it on my computer hoping that the developer might be able to refine that part. For now, I'm going to have to go back to Radar Contact.

I switched to PFE from RC for a while. I found the installation and set-up was a bit clunky, with its new front-end fastened onto a much older package.I liked the voices, the way they changed accents around the world.I did not like the approach commands; full of nasty surprises, last-minute changes of runway, ending up too close, too high, too fast.I'm now back with RC. It's completely reliable and trustworthy. I'd like to get to use the improvements in V5, but I can certainly live with the current version in the meantime.