Ever since purchasing RC4 in 2006 I occasionally see references in this forum to "RC5". What is it?

The next generation of RC which is in development now.Wish I could tell you more but I couldn't get on the Beta Team.If anyone is interested, I am still available :( Heh, Heh

The next generation of RC which is in development now.Wish I could tell you more but I couldn't get on the Beta Team.If anyone is interested, I am still available :( Heh, Heh

Neal, from one old boy to another (HE HE), nice of you to offer. We will keep you in mind. RCv5 is a BIG leap, to be honest we have so much to do, I get tired just thinking about the work in progress. When we release V5 folks will be amazed. In the mean time fly with V4.3 its still very good.Bob

I would certainly be willing to help out with RC5 should the need arise. Would do it for nothing, just to help you guys keep the ball rolling as it were. I have looked forward to RC5 for a very long time, has been in that place of honor in my sig for many many months.Glad to hear your take on what we can expect from it. I find RC to be the best way for me to fly. I cannot fly with default ATC anymore, and find it much more enjoyable to fly with Ultimate Traffic II and Radar Contact than flying online, as the airports I often like to fly into are either never manned, or are usually under control only by "Center", which is a really reality buzz kill to me.

Bob Do developers plan to improve RC atmosphere? I mean radio noises, clicking a transmition button. It would not hurt to add the speed of speech.

When we get to the sound issues and it does include voices and background radio transmissions and yes transmission clicks, we have discussed and implemented on earlier beta versions. :( At the moment SID/STAR implementations are front and center. Briefly, the design issues are complex, I for one have SIDs/STARs built into my own flight plans. I do not want them altered at all. A good example, today I am flying LLBG to KJFK, I got my real world route from Flight Aware, there is a SID for LLBG, but I have to go to a 3rd party program to find out what it is, Flight Aware does not have non-US in its database. After checking my multiple weather programs my forecast for KJFK calls for a STAR that I have to select. Radar Contact for me must follow all this preperatio B) n.Others would like to choose SID/STARS from within Radar Contact for a lot of valid reasons. SID/STARS at many airports are runway dependent and change depending on many variables like weather or traffic flow. Having said that, we are in DEEP discussions on how the user interface should work to accomplish BOTH and still be simple and intuitive. That sounds like a plan, but so hard to code. We are working on this and many other complex ATC procedures, not to mention :( VFR.Just hang in there, V5 will be GREAT, we just have to get it done and tested THROUGHLY, then will come the sound points and that is a long story to :( o Bob

When we get to the sound issues and it does include voices and background radio transmissions and yes transmission clicks, we have discussed and implemented on earlier beta versions. :( At the moment SID/STAR implementations are front and center. Briefly, the design issues are complex, I for one have SIDs/STARs built into my own flight plans. I do not want them altered at all. A good example, today I am flying LLBG to KJFK, I got my real world route from Flight Aware, there is a SID for LLBG, but I have to go to a 3rd party program to find out what it is, Flight Aware does not have non-US in its database. After checking my multiple weather programs my forecast for KJFK calls for a STAR that I have to select. Radar Contact for me must follow all this preperatio B) n.Others would like to choose SID/STARS from within Radar Contact for a lot of valid reasons. SID/STARS at many airports are runway dependent and change depending on many variables like weather or traffic flow. Having said that, we are in DEEP discussions on how the user interface should work to accomplish BOTH and still be simple and intuitive. That sounds like a plan, but so hard to code. We are working on this and many other complex ATC procedures, not to mention :( VFR.Just hang in there, V5 will be GREAT, we just have to get it done and tested THROUGHLY, then will come the sound points and that is a long story to :( o Bob

Bob, thank you for amswer.Will RC include own SID/STAR database? Will it compatible with AIRAC?

Having said that, we are in DEEP discussions on how the user interface should work to accomplish BOTH and still be simple and intuitive.

I think RC must assign SID\STAR automatically taking into account weather, traffic e.t.c. But! Possibility to change SID/STAR using RC FS interface must be added. Good example is Oliver's AES. I mean stand changing

A SID/STAR database which can be updated via Navigraph would be greatly appreciated. But a manual input would also be find by me. As I fly mostly in the United States (mainly due to me being American and that charts and routes for those airports are free and readily available), I am more looking for RC to have the ability to handle a vectored approach that has a published chart with an initial heading,and or turn and altitude restriction.At the moment RC is an all or nothing thing. I often fly out of KPWK which is a vectored approach, but if you take off the 16 RWY (Which is a vast majority of the time), you are required to perform a right turn pretty much immediately after you are in the air (to avoid entering KORD airspace). Right now I have to use a SID in RC and sort of vector myself to the waypoint, would very much love RC to let me do my turn, then take over and get me up and to my first waypoint. I have seen these types of DPs all over, KLAX, PHLI come to mind (my brains are scrambled so I cannot remember).

Bob, thank you for amswer.Will RC include own SID/STAR database? Will it compatible with AIRAC?I think RC must assign SID\STAR automatically taking into account weather, traffic e.t.c. But! Possibility to change SID/STAR using RC FS interface must be added. Good example is Oliver's AES. I mean stand changing

No RC will not have the AIRAC :( database, first that is a proprietary database which folks pay for as I do for the LDS 767 fmc. Next, that database is huge and not easy to :( manipulate. Next is a sequence issue, what is the interface between the user, who has made a flight plan and RC's SID/STAR database. What seems like an easy answer may not meet the "if this, then that" scenario. Next if the user does not have access to a 3rd party database of SID/STAR's then who builds the database? One idea we worked on was let the user do it. If thats the case, what's the interface and how re-usable is it, could it be ported from one user to another. This is just a few of the tons of complex issues, remember the old adage, KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. Well we are :( working on it.Bob

A SID/STAR database which can be updated via Navigraph would be greatly appreciated. But a manual input would also be find by me. As I fly mostly in the United States (mainly due to me being American and that charts and routes for those airports are free and readily available), I am more looking for RC to have the ability to handle a vectored approach that has a published chart with an initial heading,and or turn and altitude restriction.At the moment RC is an all or nothing thing. I often fly out of KPWK which is a vectored approach, but if you take off the 16 RWY (Which is a vast majority of the time), you are required to perform a right turn pretty much immediately after you are in the air (to avoid entering KORD airspace). Right now I have to use a SID in RC and sort of vector myself to the waypoint, would very much love RC to let me do my turn, then take over and get me up and to my first waypoint. I have seen these types of DPs all over, KLAX, PHLI come to mind (my brains are scrambled so I cannot remember).

SID's are what I have been using as an example in this discussion. Even though there are numerous complex issues, compared to STAR's this is a whole different ball game. Many STAR's and I just flew one today coming from LLBG to KJFK. The PARCH ONE arrival, has several "expects". This is not a hard constraint, but an approach advisory as appose to a CROSS AT or BELOW/ABOVE restriction. To follow the plate these have to be coded, another set of user interface challenges.Bob

It is apparent to me that top men are on top of this, and that you guys will bring us a great new version of Radar Contact.Reminds me of the end of my all time favorite movie:"We have top men working on it now.""Who?""Top. Men."

Bob, what about interaction with traffic on ground and in the air?

Bob, what about interaction with traffic on ground and in the air?

Funny you should ask that question. We were going to have air interaction with the current v4.3 but took most of it out since the separation algorithm did not match the real world ATC separation routines. Ground awareness and in-flight separation are my own very HOT buttons. You can rest assured we will improve on the current separation routines both in the air and on the ground.Bob

Funny you should ask that question. We were going to have air interaction with the current v4.3 but took most of it out since the separation algorithm did not match the real world ATC separation routines. Ground awareness and in-flight separation are my own very HOT buttons. You can rest assured we will improve on the current separation routines both in the air and on the ground.Bob

I know about current interaction in v4.3, but it is not enough. RC v4.3 doesn't control AI on ground.

Looks like you guys are pretty far deep into the development. Is there a chance for a 2011 release? What would you say are the major objectives for v5? SID/STAR handling, VFR?