What is realistic about magenta or green arrows or lines popping up on the taxiways to get you to the assigned runway? Aren't we supposed to use the airport ground charts and follow assigned taxiways?

 

Regards,

 

 

This is what I use to find the way to the runway, and after landing AES helps me to find the gate! That's far more realistic than arrows showing the way!

With google I've found most of the ICAO Charts for my airports, it's that easy!

Hi Rob, do you mean.......... "we are continiously adding more and more features requested by users."

Yes and I would say that that statement is fare enough. To say the least it is 100% true.

 

Lets be fare here ( Not directed at you Howard), anybody who expects a dev to advertise there product by saying: "This product is only a beta version and it's not complete" is expecting them to fail before they even get started.

 

Regards,

Yes and I would say that that statement is fare enough. To say the least it is 100% true.

 

Lets be fare here ( Not directed at you Howard), anybody who expects a dev to advertise there product by saying: "This product is only a beta version and it's not complete" is expecting them to fail before they even get started.

 

Regards,

 

I hear what you're saying Rick and I agree to a point. BUT... if a product is not complete, and it's blatantly obvious this was certainly the case on it's release, then to suggest it is otherwise is untruthful, and that in itself causes issues. Don't get me wrong, I don't wish to labour this point, as I have the software and am using it continually and am supporting the devs by entering forum debates, but I do think it's only fair to bring any drawbacks of the product to the attention of potential customers. Only in the same way any of us if we were having a chat with a mate over a beer and they showed an interest in something which had issues they were unaware of.  :wink:

What is realistic about magenta or green arrows or lines popping up on the taxiways to get you to the assigned runway? Aren't we supposed to use the airport ground charts and follow assigned taxiways?

 

Regards,

 

PFE doesn't use lines or arrows on taxiway to guide. It does it in 2 ways. It includes a gauge which you install in your aircraft, which will give you a arrow in the direction you are to taxi. The other and the one I use, is audio instructions from the copilot, directing you where to go. Works very well. With no arrows or other artificial graphic imposed on the taxiway.

Hi!

One question: How can one import the flightplan WITHOUT the SID?

If I get clearance and thereafter import the XXXXXXXXCLR-flightplan into the FMC, it has the departure runway and the SID already in it.

Thanks in advance!

 

You have to tick the checkbox within the options. It's written within the helpfile. I can't remember the correct writing as I am at work right now. But you can exclude SID/STAR for flightplans. Then take a pencil and get your clearance. Note the SID. Then do the preflight and use co-route function of fmc. As soon as you get your runway, insert it with the SID and transition into fmc.

 

 

To the others: Pro-ATC was my first atc addon. I read something about radar contact and it is discontinued. Also the speaking was not human. Vox-ATC has voice implemented but I wanted texts. The others was PFE and watched how a friend of me used it. It was too complex for me. So I bought ProATC.

 

The addon is and was usable for normal flights at least in europe. You have had a planner, a virtual co-pilot which can do some things for you like light, com and autopilot handling, you have had checklists and a functional atc. More features got requested by users and implemented by pointsoftware. This is a support not all companies give to you.

 

But I have no comparisation on how this compares to i.e. rc. So for a real comparisation someone who has rc, pfe and proatc and is using it should compare some basic functions. But as said, pro atc is not just an atc addon; it has much more features.

I hear what you're saying Rick and I agree to a point. BUT... if a product is not complete, and it's blatantly obvious this was certainly the case on it's release, then to suggest it is otherwise is untruthful, and that in itself causes issues. Don't get me wrong, I don't wish to labour this point, as I have the software and am using it continually and am supporting the devs by entering forum debates, but I do think it's only fair to bring any drawbacks of the product to the attention of potential customers. Only in the same way any of us if we were having a chat with a mate over a beer and they showed an interest in something which had issues they were unaware of.  :wink:

To be honest the lack of being up front from the start has left me feeling a little distrustful of this developer.

 

It maybe that Proatcx develops into the must have product that seems to be the goal set by the dev, time will tell.  But honesty will have to be proven to me before I shell out any of my hard earned cash on this product.

 

But I really do wish the developer the best of success with Proatcx, because I believe the flight sim community is really looking for a modern atc package which leaves the current offerings far behind.

 

Bryan.

 

 

To be honest the lack of being up front from the start has left me feeling a little distrustful of this developer.



It maybe that Proatcx develops into the must have product that seems to be the goal set by the dev, time will tell. But honesty will have to be proven to me before I shell out any of my hard earned cash on this product.



But I really do wish the developer the best of success with Proatcx, because I believe the flight sim community is really looking for a modern atc package which leaves the current offerings far behind.



Bryan.

 

I think that sums it up nicely.  I know they're working very hard and we're rooting for them.  They probably pushed the envelop pretty hard in terms of expectations.  They probably do need a good quality beta program as well.

I think that sums it up nicely. I know they're working very hard and we're rooting for them. They probably pushed the envelop pretty hard in terms of expectations. They probably do need a good quality beta program as well.

Unless I am mistaken, Mourad over at ProATC is a sole developer and has managed to enlist the help of Clive (Alfa 117) who is doing a bang up job of beta testing the updates among other things, so they are not like Say PMDG who has a team of beta testers.

 

We are those beta testers and some of us (not me unfortunately) do a dam good job of that too.

 

I can only say what has already been said and that is, how can anyone say that they had no idea what was and is going on with this software and is following the Pro ATC forum and forums such as this one.

 

I bought this software quite a few versions back after following it on these forums and if things don't work out (which I seriously doubt), I only have myself to blame.

 

Rome wasn't built in a day!

 

Regards,

In some ways i actually prefer this 'paid beta model' of software development; so long as companies are upfront about it and communicate and listen to the "beta testers" then it works well for both parties.

 

Look at the MIG 21 for DCS, i would love to be testing that right now, or i dare say the PMDG 777.  It can make people distrust developers if they suddenly stick a version 1.0 on a product when it is far from finished.

Good Lord Folks! How long is this "AVSIM Whine" going to go on. This is Pro-ATC's program. No they don't need a better Beta Test program....if they did they would get it. If you think they are should be called Dis-Trustful then please list the lies for us to see. Buy the program or don't buy the program...use it or don't use it your decision. There is no need to hide here so you can beat them up......go over to their website which is free to use and call them a liar!! Their is just no reason for AVSIM to continue this kind of character assignation on a company who by all appearances is working 24/7 to develop a much need add on for all of us to enjoy.

Their is just no reason for AVSIM to continue this kind of character assignation on a company who by all appearances is working 24/7 to develop a much need add on for all of us to enjoy.

 

Sigh...AVSim are doing no such thing the users of AVSim and the Pro-ATC product are voicing concerns; along with positive points.  Perhaps you believe that all forum comments should be limited to positive points?  Well i agree it would make for a more pleasant reading experience it would also kind of defeat the point.

 

Do you appear in all forums every time a negative point or points are made with the above comment?  What about if i passed a, lets say, negative comment on the Abacus 787?

 

If your remark regarding "distrust" was aimed at my comment above, i was actually referring to another company who use (though they are upfront about it) paid beta testers; i personally wasn't even commenting on the program, simply on the state of software these days.

I think, perhaps, my message got misconstrued.  I meant only encouraging things and didn't intend to infer it negatively.  I just thought that it would be good (for them!) to isolate the testing to a few users so that they can contain some of the frustration. I certainly did not intend to say that alpha117 isn't working hard either...I think he's busting his rear...but it's tough for most of the beta to be done by one guy unless its very small and, from what I've been reading this project has gotten pretty comprehensive. 

 

Truth is, I feel for these guys and hoping that we can keep from discouraging them.  Their project is tough and they're hanging in there!  It was only intended with that in mind.  My sincere apologies if it appeared otherwise. 

Sam,  I think like Gregg has said, with respect, through no fault of your own you have misconstrued what has been said. I have seen no 'character assassination' or 'beating anyone up,'and certainly no one is calling anyone a liar! I think it's a perfectly reasonable chat about something that is extremely important. You have to remember Sam that this product, costing 50 euros (80$,) is by no means an inexpensive purchase for a lot of guys. I think it's perfectly legitimate to discuss the product on this forum in a balanced and fair manner. I haven't seeen anyone bashing the dev or the product, but simply voicing concerns and passing opinions. Like many other guys, as I have already said, I have the greatest respect for anyone launching a new product to the market place, and indeed have the greatest admiration for Mourad and Clive, who's program I continue to support and use :wink: