Hi Jim,

 

I am beginning to think that the aircraft speed parameters in Pro ATC X are in IAS, not GS, which is why the descent tends to come so late (with a testy 'negative' if you ask for a lower altitude!). I will try changing the 737 speed parameter to 500 kts or so and see whether that works better.

 

Best wishes,

 

Michael

Hi Jim and Michael

 

it is the ground speed and the rest distance taken into account and it is recalculated during the whole descent process since a user may increase or decrease the speed. I simply have to adjust the method I think.

 

Jim, regarding the wrong ILS frequency: You may correct it in "Data->Airports.

 

When import of AIRAC is implemented they should be corrected automatically.

Thanks Mourad! Good info!

 

Best regards,

Jim

Any other beta tester managed to successfully complete a flight with this new patch ? ( besides the usual speedbird and firehawk44)

 

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

 

Thanks Fred.Sounds good. Did you manage to land without any hiccup ?

Tried the new patch. Got all the way to finals (at last), but I also noticed the late descent instructions. I was so high (about 5000ft too high) that I was never going to be able to land safely so I opted to quit the flight. I could see quite far out that I was going to be too high but I decided to see what the ATC would do.

Any other beta tester managed to successfully complete a flight with this new patch ? ( besides the usual speedbird and firehawk44)

 

 

 

Thanks Fred.Sounds good. Did you manage to land without any hiccup ?

 

 

Sorry but i don't understand what is "hiccup" i m french...

 

Otherwise, atc vectored and gave me some good instruction for landing, As mentioned above, ils frequency was wrong too, but i looked in the same time the arrival chart for Brest airport, so i changed it before landing.

Since this program is out, more patch but more pleasure to use it.

i look forward the other updates,like airac, load flight plan created with FSC or other...

 

I really don't regret this purchase.

 

Well Thanks to MBA

Sorry but i don't understand what is "hiccup"

 

I meant if you had problems during the flight because of the software or if it was a smooth ride so to say.It's nice and refreshing to read that there are at least three persons who can enjoy it.

Sorry but i don't understand what is "hiccup" i m french.

 

Un hoquet...

MindYerBeak, sorry but you are really negative. Even in this forum there are a lot more than 3 using the software without problems. Would you visit the PRO-ATC/X forum, you would notice that most of the users are satisfied with the software after the latest patches. I guess you have done this already but want to keep having fun with the comments you are giving here. Have you been payed for your negative comments? Or are you maybe programming a better software? I would buy it, really! Just let me know ^_^

 

Kind Regards

 

MBA

Hi Babba,

 

I have been following this thread which is now 19 pages long with great interest.

 

There was a lot of enthousiasm on the first pages, a host of problems surfaced on the following pages as the first users made their experiences, disappointment grew, and around page 10 the first thoughts about refunds appeared. Patch after patch was released and those "beta testers" who still were aboard noticed some improvements but the general opinion was and is that the product isn't ready for release.

 

As far as I can see, even the most patient and tenacious of users (firehawk44) wasn't able to do a flight without issues, even with version 1.0.3.0. I wouldn't call it a successful flight when he reports (top of this page): "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." To properly descend me and guide me to the glideslope is what we have ATC for.

 

I also repeatedly visited the Pro-ATC forum and failed to "notice that most of the users are satisfied with the software after the latest patches."

 

To ask a user if he has been payed for his negative comments is rather insulting. After all he has payed you for your product and he rightfully exspect it to work as advertised. If it doesn't don't get angry, improve it!

 

Sine ira et studio: With all due respect for your work I would politely suggest that you

1. temporarily suspend the sale of Pro-ATC,

2. put together a good beta-team,

3. and try again with version 2.0.0.0.

 

It really doesn't help the reputation of your software to have a 19-page thread on AVSIM where users mostly report problems, vent their frustration and are finally insulted by the developer.

 

 

Regards, Andreas

.. and on the plus side, it shows there is a market for this type of software and worthy of putting in the effort to make it work well. :)

+1

 

" . . . and worthy of putting in the effort to make it work well."

 

Well said!

 

JJ

+1

 

I really would love a high fidelity offline ATC software. I am still debating whether or not to purchase this software. I am a little hesitant to buy due to this thread. I may just wait until all the kinks are worked out.

MindYerBeak, sorry but you are really negative. Even in this forum there are a lot more than 3 using the software without problems. Would you visit the PRO-ATC/X forum, you would notice that most of the users are satisfied with the software after the latest patches. I guess you have done this already but want to keep having fun with the comments you are giving here. Have you been payed for your negative comments? Or are you maybe programming a better software? I would buy it, really! Just let me know ^_^

 

Kind Regards

 

MBA

 

Sorry, but I have to ask this! Looking back at your posts you seem to be pretty much in the know of the inner workings of how this software is suppose to work, so I have to ask are you on the developers team of this software, or a Beta Tester of it? If so I think it's time you identify yourself as such per forum rules, and receive the coveted Gold emblem "Commercial Member" . If you are not, my mistake, and please disregard!

 

"Hi Jim and Michael

 

it is the ground speed and the rest distance taken into account and it is recalculated during the whole descent process since a user may increase or decrease the speed. I simply have to adjust the method I think.

 

Jim, regarding the wrong ILS frequency: You may correct it in "Data->Airports.

When import of AIRAC is implemented they should be corrected automatically."

"Commercial Member"

:P