A quick fly by of Pro ATC

[N1G 88]

I am losing faith. It seems there have been other products which were released way to soon. I hope this is not a trend for the future.

 

Bob

[Chock 17,769]

Well, I can accept that there may indeed, and almost certainly will, be the odd issue with any software which ends up on a variety of computers. For example, I don't mind that not every aeroplane I use it with gels perfectly with the co-pilot, and that sometimes I'll have to engage the autopilot or retract the gear myself, since that is something which affects MCE sometimes too when the add-on aircraft strays outside the default FS SDK methods. But I find it very hard to believe that when so many people are experiencing glitches, or problems with Pro ATC's basic functionality as an ATC program, and it just plain not working as advertised, that this never happened on the developer's and tester's computers.

 

So I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that whilst promising in prospect, what we are actually faced with, is having paid forty quid to beta test something which was quite evidently not ready for release. I have now downloaded four patches for it, and it still hasn't done what it is advertised as doing on any single one of them, and to be honest that's simply not good enough when one is charging that kind of money for something.

 

If it did what it was supposed to do flawlessly, I could accept the limitations it has in capability. But when it cannot even do that, it only succeeds in being a source of frustration.

 

Al

[N1G 88]

Well, I can accept that there may indeed, and almost certainly will, be the odd issue with any software which ends up on a variety of computers. For example, I don't mind that not every aeroplane i use it with gels perfectly with the co-pilot, and that sometimes I'll have to engage the autopilot or retract the gear myself, since that is something which affects MCE sometimes too when the add-on aircraft strays outside the default FS SDK methods. But I find it very hard to believe that when so many people are experiencing glitches, or problems the Pro ATC's basic functionality as an ATC program, and it just plain not working as advertised, that this never happened on the developer's and tester's computers.

 

So I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that whilst promising in prospect, what we are actually faced with, is having paid forty quid to beta test something which was quite evidently not ready for release. I have now downloaded four patches for it, and it still hasn't done what it is advertised as doing on any single one of them, and to be honest that's simply not good enough when one is charging that kind of money for something.

 

Al

 

Al, I completely agree. I am beginning to feel like a "sucker". I would have said "feel like a beta tester", but the lack of progress has made me feel otherwise. I cannot help but wonder if the necessary experience for an undertaking of this nature exists. Hope is not something that I cling to as it is just not my nature to be that way, although I do not fault those who do. I try to base my conclusions on what I am seeing, and as of now, I am not seeing any progress. I had mentioned debug a few days back and I am pleased that this code has been introduced. But what is troubling is that these faults are widespread and most appear to be the same issue. It seems to me that the problem would be obvious, although I know nothing about the simconnect SDK and the complexities that may exist when writing code against this base. I can only speculate that either the developer(s) are unfamiliar with this base or the design of the program is inherently inadequate.

 

Bob

[grandfred29 180]

Good evening to you,

 

 

So I see that I'm not the only one to have problems, yet I do not see anyone saying on their forum.

 

For the designer of the program, we are a minority having problems, so rather than say here that his program does not work, I think we should go tell on their forum.

 

I do them at the beginning of my purchase and it earned me be banned ...

 

 

So please, go tell his forum.

 

thank you

 

Fred

[Guest firehawk44]

I tried a new approach at making this program work this afternoon. Instead of using the PMDG 737-800NGX, I used the default 737. It's pretty neat using the default. You just go to your startup airport and gate then activate ProATC. You have to open up the ATC window and select the 1 option and you'll eventually get clearance for pushback and taxi to the runway. The co-pilot enters all the data, such as heading, airspeed, altitude, VS, and change the COM and NAV frequencies. Once you take off, the co-pilot will raise your gears for you (but not the flaps). With the PMDG 737, this never happen where all my settings were done by the co-pilot and gear brought up after take off. Pretty neat! Then, ATC stears you to the next heading and he rogers that and turns the heading knob and you're going to the first waypoint. When ATC tells you to go to a higher altitude, the co-pilot does that too. Even the flight attendants could be heard giving the after takeoff briefing and I never heard that with the PMDG737. You keep the flight nav option set to GPS and the co-pilot takes you to your destination and you can view the scenery. However, I did my normal flight from KLAX to KSFO using the CASTA2 SID and to GMN, EHF, PINNI, CZQ, and KSFO. Things went well until somewhere between EHF and PINNI as there was no more com between the co-pilot and ATC. The flight took me directly over KSFO at my set FL of 24000 without any ATC. I tried to check-in several times but nothing. At KSFO, the aircraft simply circled KSFO. So, at the beginning of the flight, things were working so well I thought using the default aircraft was the solution to all our problems (as I don't recall anyone using any default aircraft, just payware, particularly the PMDG 737). Unfortunately, it doesn't work any better (except at the beginning). I plan on e-mailing this with my log.txt attached.

 

Best regards,

Jim

[N1G 88]

Have you ever seen the movie Ground Hog Day?

 

Bob

[Guest firehawk44]

No, missed that one Bob. Hopefully these ATC issues weren't caused by them!!!

 

Best regards,

Jim

[Chock 17,769]

Any aeroplane which stays relatively close to the default aeroplanes as far as programming is concerned, i.e. what you might call 'lite' sims, will normally function well with stuff like this and MCE's co pilot, because things such as the gear and flaps are on default systems and can be accessed by this kind of add-on without the need to do custom stuff via an SDK. It's only when you get older aircraft with more fussy autopilots or complex add ons with custom routines running outside the bog standard parameters of FSX that you'll find you have to start raising the flaps yourself.

 

So, the Wilco EVO Classic 737 requires you to raise the gear yourself, but the JF 737-200 will have the co-pilot raising the gear, however, you'll be setting the autopilot up yourself initially at least; same with the CS B-52 actually, whereas the AeroSim 787 is almost totally compatible with the co pilot in Pro ATC, and she will do all of the stuff.

 

But sadly, with both complex and simple add-on aircraft, I've yet to find it working from off the block to shut down, or even up to giving me a descent to the destination.

 

Al

[Guest firehawk44]

Going back to my statement earlier today when I said I can't believe they released a product without having a successful flight. That's why I decided to try this default aircraft approach to see if that worked whereas the payware, like PMDG aircraft, were incompatible or partially incompatible. Yet, I proved to myself anyway, that it doesn't work for the default either!

 

Best regards,

Jim

[JRMurray 214]

My thanks to those brave souls who bought Pro ATC and have been keeping the rest of us updated. I was tempted to buy the program, but after all I've read, I'm going to hold off until it works properly.

 

Again, thanks Jim, Al, and all the rest. You really are doing the rest of us a great service.

[grandfred29 180]

Going back to my statement earlier today when I said I can't believe they released a product without having a successful flight. That's why I decided to try this default aircraft approach to see if that worked whereas the payware, like PMDG aircraft, were incompatible or partially incompatible. Yet, I proved to myself anyway, that it doesn't work for the default either!

 

Best regards,

Jim

 

hello jim,

 

Did you try that?

 

http://dailykermit.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/windows-7-exclusive-device-control/

 

Find on their forum and it works for some people.

 

Fred

[MindYerBeak 73]

Fred, did you have a successful flight with pro-atc yet ? I still haven't heard of anyone who was able to complete a flight with proatc.

[awralls 5]

I've completed a couple - more or less. It's when you do so you realise that the actual ATC processes are somewhat farcical. Being vectored when you're flying airways on a filed flight plan??? What's that all about?

 

However, I think the main point is that I started having success when I realised two things - you have to accept the ProATC flight plan unedited, and you need to ensure you overfly every waypoint precisely.

 

As to the latter, the best way I've found to achieve that is to use Aivlasoft's EFB running on a networked PC and loading the ProATC.pln after clearance delivery and again after being given the arrival procedure. You can then see exactly what waypoints have been created by ProATC on the fly and where you need to be to overfly them. It's important to note that the ProATC-derived STAR waypoints aren't always precisely aligned with the real procedures you'd get from Navigraph.

 

Do note that the .pln is updated once the STAR is alocated.

 

 

Do all that and it works just fine.

 

 

However, whether you want something so scripted and inflexible is another question. Me? I've gone back to PFE, RC, and VOXATC, depending on flight type and location.

 

 

Andy

[Glynn 405]

Hello

I had this program back in 2005 when it was called FScom, see here for the Avsim review

http://www.avsim.com/pages/0106/FSCOM/FSCOM.htm

 

All that seems to have changed is that it has lost its SAPI 4 speech recognition.

It generates ABL scripted adventures which are very rigid in structure, follow then to the letter or the ATC will give up on you.

So if you like the sound of scripted flights then this might interest you, but there is no flexibility at all.

[awralls 5]

Another thing that might be throwing people is the actual vectors given - it seems that they are the vectors you need to fly if you are already on track. For example, let's say you're flying a SID, on a runway 27, and the first waypoint is 5 miles at 300 according to ProATC, but you're in your NGX and following the SID as given by Pro-ATC which you've set up on your FMC. the Navigraph data you're flying actully has you flying straight out for 3 miles and then turning to intercept that way point. So you fly 270 for 3 miles and then turn to something like 320 to intercept the first waypoint.

 

All is fine, except that you'll get a vector from ProATC to fly 300, even though if you do, you'll miss the waypoint because you're now south of and flying parallel to the planned track!! In other words, the vectors tell you where you should have been going if you'd flown the Pro-ATC track,and not deviated from it, which you did because, in all innocence, you used the REAL data from navigraph!.

 

It's a bag of nails.

 

Andy