Best ATC Addon

[tf51d 284]

Hi Tom,

It seems that PFE requires you to load a flight plan complete with sids and stars,compile it and transfer it to fsx. What happens in the case where you prepare a 12-14 hour plan say YSSY-SAEZ with FSC9 for the PMDG 747, with no sid/stars and then when you are in the a/c, loaded with fuel, pax and cargo, work out what runways to use and build your sid then, when close to destination, program the FMC with the runway and star. I usually use real world weather update. Can you change the PFE loaded flight plan, and therefore the ATC interaction via the later fmc changes or is it a case of you must create your entire plan up front? I thought the video you posted really nailed the ATC interaction for that flight

Regards

Yeah! That's one of it's limitations, I believe RC4 doesn't assign SID's and STAR's either, I'm not sure about VOXATC. ProATC-X does appear to have this functionality, so that may be something to consider.

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

Surprised no one's said anything about VOXATC in this thread.

 

EDIT:  I mean about it's capabilities:  SIDs, STARs, terrain handling, vectoring, VFR, AI...that stuff.

[tf51d 284]

Surprised no one's said anything about VOXATC in this thread.

 I mentioned it :LOL:

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

 

I mentioned it :lol:

 

You're fast...I meant as to it's capabilities.  I opted for RC 4 over it because I didn't want the voice recognition.  But I would like to know.

[wims80 121]

From what I have read, I'm unable to agree (at the momement). The reason for the warning is explained on the product's support forum. To give a short summary:

 

The program reads the required runway length through SimConnect. If the aircraft doesn't report these values, the ATC program does not know what runways the aircraft is able to use. More informative message could be "I don't know your aircrafts performace figures, so please request a runway that is most suitable for you"

...

Real world ATC does not know about the performance of your airplane and what runway length you require to be able to land your aircraft at your current weight. It is up to the pilots to check their charts to see if the assigned runway is long enough for the plane to land safely (this is generally done by the airliners dispatch office before the flight has started, hence the 'dispatch' remark from Kyle). If it's not long enough they would have to request another runway from ATC.

[joolsd 10]

The best thing about Flight sim is VATSIM or simular. I just can't understand the need for ATC programs.

[coma 6]

I have to agree, if you're a real world pilot, you know that the interaction between ATC and pilots is dynamic in every sense of the word. Any synthetic program is going to fall far short of the mark when compared against services like VATSIM, IVAO, BVATC or PilotEdge which utilize real people to provide the ATC.

 

I can see how non-pilots might use a synthetic program to learn the ropes, but for someone who actively flies, I'm curious why you make the conscious decision to fly offline, and furthermore, when you do fly offline, why would you want to utilize a pseudo-atc system that operates very differently than the real thing? I'm not being critical, I'm just trying to understand the motivation.

[ferangel2000 20]

Hi fellows,

register in to the VATSIM or IVAO network and get the real ATC control for simmers.

as me, more than 4000 hrs flight in that net.

Regards from Costa Rica.

Fher.

[tf51d 284]

I have to agree, if you're a real world pilot, you know that the interaction between ATC and pilots is dynamic in every sense of the word. Any synthetic program is going to fall far short of the mark when compared against services like VATSIM, IVAO, BVATC or PilotEdge which utilize real people to provide the ATC.

 

I can see how non-pilots might use a synthetic program to learn the ropes, but for someone who actively flies, I'm curious why you make the conscious decision to fly offline, and furthermore, when you do fly offline, why would you want to utilize a pseudo-atc system that operates very differently than the real thing? I'm not being critical, I'm just trying to understand the motivation.

...and there's the shameless plug :LOL:

[coma 6]

...and there's the shameless plug :lol:

 

wow....really? Let's see, I listed PE last...I listed every other alternative network I could think of...I said nothing specific about PE.  

 

So, I'm not allowed to enter a discussion of synthetic vs live ATC systems? I think there's a LOT to discuss there without making it network specific.

[joolsd 10]

He's only joking There is no money in these networks, it's there for Flight Simmer enjoyment.

So it's not really a plug. It is a suggestion, why pay for something that can't compete with a real form of RC.

[Jarkko 59]

 

Surprised no one's said anything about VOXATC in this thread.
 
EDIT:  I mean about it's capabilities:  SIDs, STARs, terrain handling, vectoring, VFR, AI...that stuff.

 

Hello!

 

I'll bite I got VoxATC after using RC4 for a long time. I wanted to try four things that RC4 didn't have: 

 

1) Talking to ATC with "correct" phraseology (I used RC4 with IYP so I could talk to RC4, but wanted  "more").

 

2) Ground handling. VoxATC gives you taxiways to use and is aware of the other ground traffic (because it generates the traffic). And it's nice to be number 8+ for departure on large airports.

 

3) Full support for SIDs and STARs. I enjoy the fact that the aircraft that depart in front of you (sometimes) fly the same SID you have been assigned.

 

4) VFR flying

 

There are a couple of things that I personally would like to see changed in VoxATC:

 

- Vectoring currently not aware of the terrain. Safest way is to request full approach when there is dangerous terrain around the airport.

 

- Correct transition altitudes for the whole world.

 

- Radio frequency ping-pong when flying near borders.

 

- This is more of on issue with Opus, but tail wind landings are quite common. Opus recovers the surface winds too late for ATC programs to assign a correct runway. If the weather could be read from a weather engine specific file, this would not be a problem.

 

To summarize: I'm happy with VoxATC and RC4.

 

EDIT: Having said all that, I'm currently following ProATC very closely. When they get the ATC part working solid, I will give it a try. Already have the money "earmarked"

[tf51d 284]

wow....really? Let's see, I listed PE last...I listed every other alternative network I could think of...I said nothing specific about PE.  

 

So, I'm not allowed to enter a discussion of synthetic vs live ATC systems? I think there's a LOT to discuss there without making it network specific.

 

As Julian stated, I meant it as a joke, hence the :lol: If I meant it, there wouldn't be a smiley!! On a serious note, there are 2 reasons, I use offline vs online. One is my setup is not conducive to an online session at the moment, and I like the atmosphere of having realistic traffic levels while I'm flying. I just watched your XP10 CRJ Pilotedge  video (Good videos BTW) , and what was there 1 or 2 others, if that? Hardly realistic for the LAX airspace!!

 

 

2) Ground handling. VoxATC gives you taxiways to use and is aware of the other ground traffic (because it generates the traffic). And it's nice to be number 8+ for departure on large airports.

 

VOXATC generates the traffic, but does it control it? Or is it just like UT2, it generates it but then FSX AI takes over?

[agutz 13]

Tom,

"VOXATC generates the traffic, but does it control it?"

Yes, it does.

On all other issues (RC4 versus VoxATC, and ProATC) I agree with Jarkko.

RC4 and Vox are doing what they say they are doing and both are stable.

I'm using RC4 (70%, voice controlled by VoiceActivatedCommands) and Vox (30%) .

Andreas

[metalmike 34]

It's not a perfect program, but RC can actually do most of the things some people think that it doesn't, they just don't read the manual to figure out how to properly do it. I don't mean that to be offensive, but yes, you can fly Sids and Stars, declare emergencies and such.