Its sounding better everytime I visit this forum....

Except that it is designed for airliners and I fly KingAir B90 mostly, and a/c of similar size.

 

allen

MindYerBeak,

 

" I just went through the 18 pages of this thread and noticed that this software works fine for 2 users (Michael and Jim) only . . . "

 

Come on now! You're not being fair because your statement is based on this thread only. First, this is not the official PRO-ATC/X forum and I think if you read the posts in Pointsoft's Forum, you might have a different opinion. I bought the software a day or so after it came out and admittedly, I had issues on which were based a fair number of my inputs submitted as constructive criticism. But with the latest patch, I can now fly a complete route from A to Z and looking forward to enhancements presently being worked on and those beyond that point.

 

I also think that posts from folks experiencing issues/challenges far outnumber any other kind of posts. It's human nature at its best.

 

Regards,

 

JJ

First, this is not the official PRO-ATC/X forum and I think if you read the posts in Pointsoft's Forum, you might have a different opinion

 

 

Nope. I followed the pointsoft forums and also managed to read the posts that were voicing disappointment before they were deleted and posters silenced for good.

" . . . also managed to read the posts that were voicing disappointment before they were deleted and posters silenced for good."

 

The way I heard it was that the posts that were deleted were from people that hadn't even bought the software and yet criticizing it. That being the case, I agree with the developer.

 

When a person is considering buying software/hardware, that person has every right to ask questions but in my opinion, no right to critisize it.

 

Regards,

 

JJ

The way I heard it was that the posts that were deleted were from people that hadn't even bought the software and yet criticizing it

 

I'm sorry but you heard/read wrong.You are probably referring to the post that had "very important" in the subject ? That was/is a myth, pure fiction. You cannot judge the software if you didn't test it yourself.There's no demo available.You need to buy it.So I'm referring to legal owners.

 

That post was marketing genius .

It says IFR ATC for airliner flights, so I thought it's got to do something. For example; do we switch off Ai traffic in case FSX ATC is landing them against PROATC approaches? Usually these types of programs intercept FSX ATC, we've all used FSX ATC and changed approaches. You can even change plans mid flight and all sorts of things not realised by many to be FSX ATC but not surfaced in FSX, which is also the Ai traffic system...

 

I still have my default ATC program functioning but have turned off the sound. That plus ProATC, and background ATC is just too much 'ambience for me! LOL. There is an excellent program that does control AI and I sometimes enable it. It's called AISmooth. Michael (Speedbird) has it right in his comments but thought I'd add my own too.

 

Best regards,

Jim

Thanks Jim. I'll get hold of a copy next week maybe, work permitting. I suppose there's no mad rush as the patches are just sorting things out. I would imagine that even AISmooth simply sends requests to the FSX Ai subsytem, I'll have a look at that too! Good for you, sticking with it.

 

My worry about these situations is the developer can be panicked into making other mistakes, like a game of wack-a-mole, fix one another pops up. If the product looks neat, and the dev is active, and given FSX will still be around in a few weeks, give the dev space, it'll all work properly soon I expect.

You guys who experienced Radar Contact 4 and tried also this program, can tell its pros and conns in comparison ?.-

Thanks

Sorry soldano, I haven't used RC since version 3 for FS 2004, been using FS ATC and PFE since FS X.

 

Incidentally, I also worry like SteveW that the developer will be goaded into doing things that detract from Pro ATC /X's beautiful simplicity and almost invisible performance impact. I do feel sorry for those who can't get it to work, I was very angry when it did not work for me after 2.5 weeks of purchase. The developer does seem fair-minded to me, so I expect all will be ok in the end.

 

Michael

My worry is that I may not see a useable product in exchange for the 40 quid the developer has been banking.

 

I'm getting just a little weary of the hearing how we need to cut the down-trodden and pressurised developer some slack. This was a commercial transaction. To date there are gaping holes in the functionality of this product (and that's what it is...not some hobby on which the developer can fool around with in his bedroom).

 

The readme for the most recent patch makes it clear that many of the ATC contact issues were down to a bug. Of course, that's understandable, especially if you're still at the testing stage, but tolerence is being stretched by the approach which relies on challenging the user to prove it's not his system that's causing the issues.

 

And even if the basic problems exhibited by the product are resolved (after 9+ patches in a couple of weeks, I'd like to think they are, but that also provides a pretty good summaryof the product when it was released), the ATC processes used bear little resemblence to the real world. Frankly, until the absurd vectoring at every waypoint is dispensed with, native FSX ATC is more realistic.

 

I think it's time to call this what it is...a failure waiting to be fixed.

 

Meanwhile...I'm still 40 quid down on the deal.

 

Andy

You are perfectly right of course. I think I've got over £3000 of addons and loads of stuff has glaring issues never to be fixed; for example, having to run as admin, and then there's tons I would never use because just using them is painful or too time consuming. At least the dev is working on this one.

And..another patch is out.Anyone playing the guinea pig ?

 

 

Al, did you give it a whirl yet ?

the last patch work very good, problem with qnh is solve, great product. Great job

Did EDDM-LOWW in PMDG 737 with version 1.0.3.0. Largely uneventful, a bit high on approach, so many of the early problems are being solved now. Very simple, but also very effective.

 

Michael

Did KLAX-KSFO in default 737 with version 1.0.3.0. Largely uneventful, a bit high on approach to 28L at KSFO (hard to capture the glideslope at 3500) and ATC gave co-pilot the wrong ILS Nav frequency. Approach provided 109.50 and actual frequency is 109.55. Therefore I was unable to capture the glideslope and had to take over controls from co-pilot. When I took over, the aircraft was on a course about 5 miles to the left of the 28L runway. Landed safely and ATC told me to contact ground control. I think ATC waits too long for giving instructions to descend. About 10 miles from downtown San Francisco I was given permission to descend to FL 190 from FL 240. At downtown San Francisco, I was told to descend to FL 140. Fortunately I had slowed the aircraft to around 220 before the descent so it wasn't too bad but, if I had been going at or above 250 (which I can do above FL100), I would not have been down to the glideslope on time or the vertical speed would have been very, very high. In other flights not involving ProATC, the FMC on the PMDG 737 NGX has started a descent around Carmel or BSR. On this flight, the co-pilot had to set the VS to 2200 which is not very comfortable for my virtual passengers....

 

Best regards,

Jim