Another way to temporarily avoid FSX ATC is to wait for a handoff. After you accept it just leave the ATC alone without contacting the new frequency. It works every time. Whenever you get back with ATC, like Tower for your final approach, expect some funny vectoring to come from it, just ignore it and let it run its course until you get something more reasonable.

There are too many passengers on my plane, FSX ATC must be condamned putting so much human lives in such a risk vectoring the approaching plane always to crash.I propose to do something against FSX ATC and the idiot who programmed it.Do you perhaps know its name ? We should find it in the web somewhere, if he is still alive.

There are too many passengers on my plane, FSX ATC must be condamned putting so much human lives in such a risk vectoring the approaching plane always to crash.I propose to do something against FSX ATC and the idiot who programmed it.Do you perhaps know its name ? We should find it in the web somewhere, if he is still alive.

Seriously??The only things that died are "0" and "1"And the pilot have the last decision so you can always ignore what ATC tells you if you know that the plane it is goin to crash.

I propose to do something against FSX ATC and the idiot who programmed it.Do you perhaps know its name ? We should find it in the web somewhere, if he is still alive.

Don't you think you're being a little harsh? Sure, it's not great, but it's for beginners. Hopefully MS Flight will have a better more sophisticated one but if you think about it, why would the developers make it more complicated? So the average person interested in flying planes because they seem cool (which are the majority of simmers) can't do it anymore because they don't know what a SID/STAR etc. is? The devs know that we have VATSIM and Radar contact and other things so they wouldn't bother making it super sophisticated. Ideally, I guess they could have various levels of ATC. Beginner (what it is now), or realistic (what we all want with everything that radar contact has) but I believe MS made a conscious decision to make it basic.

Hi,I can only imagine that no other company is interested in developing an ATC program because RC4 and RC5 (whenever its going to be released) does everything its suppose to do and does it extremely well. I really don't get the too old both in concept and graphic statement. RC4's concept is based on real world ATC, the concept doesn't get any better than that. As far as the graphics being too old, what graphic?. Your talking about a text box. If RC5 allows two way voice communication thereby eliminating the keyboard, there won't be any graphic at all, one could only hope. :(

I wonder why during last years only Radar Contact built an ATC ( IMHO that 's quite good but nowdays it is too old both as concept and graphic ).

I doubt RC5 will ever see the light of day to be honest. And Mark if Microsoft were to code an ATC/AI traffic system that worked as well as you expect it to then FSX would probably have cost about $50,000 a copy and would have taken at least another 5 years to develop, you seriously have no clue how hard it is to code an artificial intelligence and control system like this.

Sorry fat fingered double post.

Hi,I use RC4, VATSIM/IVAO coverage is just to sporadic and I'm not about to start dictating my flights based on VATSIM/IVAO coverage.

You could always fly online using RC4 when youre in uncontrolled space and human atc when youre in controlled space. Seems like the best alternative these days.

I doubt RC5 will ever see the light of day to be honest. And Mark if Microsoft were to code an ATC/AI traffic system that worked as well as you expect it to then FSX would probably have cost about $50,000 a copy and would have taken at least another 5 years to develop, you seriously have no clue how hard it is to code an artificial intelligence and control system like this.

RC4 is sold for less than $50.000 ........... and it does its job .......so MS can't do the same of RC4 or only for $50000 ? I think you are a MS support tech member to justify MS FSX ATC.Are you the original programmer ? Guys, maybe he is the author of FSX ATC !! ??

See what I mean, not a clue.RC4 is far from perfect so far in fact that I don't use it anymore, I prefer the default ATC to it to be honest. In preference to default ATC I use Proflight Emulator Deluxe and no that isn't perfect either, no software is.

See what I mean, not a clue.RC4 is far from perfect so far in fact that I don't use it anymore, I prefer the default ATC to it to be honest. In preference to default ATC I use Proflight Emulator Deluxe and no that isn't perfect either, no software is.

The original thread title stated " use " not " sue " but I prefer the moderators' one