More realistic ATC rather than the standard.

[bennyboy75 85]

Ugh...that kind of puts me back on the fence... I can already do that with the default FSX ATC. My biggest issue with default ATC is that it usually starts vectoring off the STAR too early... usually 40-50 miles out (which would actually be very normal for airports that don't have any STARS).

 

Why would you close runways? Most STARS are not runway specific - they are selected based on what direction you're coming from. ATC then gives you the appropriate approach/runway so you can always land into the wind.

As above, I got this wrong. You can specify the end of the SID and the beginning of the STAR on the flight plan page. Depending on how far out the final waypoint on the STAR is from your arrival runway you may fly the whole thing or just some of it. No two airports are the same in respect of STARS. Many STARS in the UK for example terminate at a VOR or NBD on the field itself which isn't realistic to real life ops. In most of Europe, you'll be pulled off the STAR and radar vectored to the localizer. PFE handles this pretty well. If you want to fly the whole STAR to the FAF, which is pretty standard somewhere like EHAM then you can do that too, by requesting 'pilot's discretion to final', where they will let you fly the whole thing and you contact tower once established.

 

The reason I close runways is that PFE gives you runways based on ai usage and winds. On calm days when FSX can't quite make up its mind you may find yourself landing into oncoming traffic. I find if you close everything but the runway you want then that doesn't happen as everyone is landing and taking off in the right direction. It's not entirely realistic but it's more realistic than being vectored to the moon and back because PFE keeps changing the arrival runway because FSX can't make up it's mind.

 

You can close runways to PFE inside the program, which means PFE won't give you them, but it does nothing to stop ai using them. Only closing the runway altogether via the afcad does, in my experience. Remember to open them again after the flight or when the wind changes all your ai will go screwy taking off with a tailwind.

[tf51d 284]

The reason I close runways is that PFE gives you runways based on ai usage and winds. On calm days when FSX can't quite make up its mind you may find yourself landing into oncoming traffic. I find if you close everything but the runway you want then that doesn't happen as everyone is landing and taking off in the right direction. It's not entirely realistic but it's more realistic than being vectored to the moon and back because PFE keeps changing the arrival runway because FSX can't make up it's mind.

 

Closing runways in PFE has no affect on AI aircraft.  So it is still possible AI will land in the opposite direction if the wind direction warrants. The only way that I know of to force AI to land in a specific direction, is to close the opposite runway in the AFCAD.

 

Edit: OOPS you said this in the next paragraph, sorry!!!

[vololiberista 205]

Ugh...that kind of puts me back on the fence... I can already do that with the default FSX ATC. My biggest issue with default ATC is that it usually starts vectoring off the STAR too early... usually 40-50 miles out (which would actually be very normal for airports that don't have any STARS).

 

Why would you close runways? Most STARS are not runway specific - they are selected based on what direction you're coming from. ATC then gives you the appropriate approach/runway so you can always land into the wind.

The reason for closed runways is quite clear actually. Think of London Heathrow with two parallel rwys. 27L / 09R, 09L / 27R. The sim ATC and all others will treat each rwy as open for both landing and take-off at the same time. So you will have AI landing and taking-off from the same runway. It's unrealistic to say the least. The sim ATC will simply vector you to the nearest into wind rwy. You have to close rwys for landing and/or take-off both in Afcad and in PFE otherwise you end up with chaos. Closing the rwys means a more realistic situation. I can arrive at any STAR and PFE will either vector me or allow me to do a radar approach. SID's are rwy specific and are easily set-up in PFE.

 

Closing runways in PFE has no affect on AI aircraft. So it is still possible AI will land in the opposite direction if the wind direction warrants. The only way that I know of to force AI to land in a specific direction, is to close the opposite runway in the AFCAD.

 

Edit: OOPS you said this in the next paragraph, sorry!!!

You have to close the rwy in afcad and run makerwys and also close it in PFE. Then AI will obey. The only time it's a problem is when there is a light crosswind. Then the sim engine, PFE, RC4,FSUIPC et al all get confused and you might be vectored into oncoming traffic.

[MadDog 353]

 

 

As above, I got this wrong. You can specify the end of the SID and the beginning of the STAR on the flight plan page. Depending on how far out the final waypoint on the STAR is from your arrival runway you may fly the whole thing or just some of it. No two airports are the same in respect of STARS. Many STARS in the UK for example terminate at a VOR or NBD on the field itself which isn't realistic to real life ops. In most of Europe, you'll be pulled off the STAR and radar vectored to the localizer. PFE handles this pretty well. If you want to fly the whole STAR to the FAF, which is pretty standard somewhere like EHAM then you can do that too, by requesting 'pilot's discretion to final', where they will let you fly the whole thing and you contact tower once established.

 

Awesome...that's what I'm looking for. After viewing Tom's video (which confirms that behavior), I'm back off the fence and will purchase PFE tonight. With that said, it's not perfect... you should not get a "radar contact" every time you switch to the next sector (only on departure or if your radar service was previously terminated due to limited radar coverage). The 50 degree intercept to the localizer was also a bit disconcerting; but all in all, PFE looks very well done. WIth all the added enhancements, I do wonder why the old PF2000 program is still required - plugging the data directly into the "emulator" program seems like it would be a lot less clunky... but I can live with it.

[tf51d 284]

 

 

You have to close the rwy in afcad and run makerwys and also close it in PFE. Then AI will obey. The only time it's a problem is when there is a light crosswind. Then the sim engine, PFE, RC4,FSUIPC et al all get confused and you might be vectored into oncoming traffic.

 

So far with PFE (and I've flown many flights with it so far - I flying one now!) I haven't had any issue with opposing traffic. I've had situations where my runway assignment was changed to the opposite direction when the wind changed, but so far no conflict with AI!

[tf51d 284]

Awesome...that's what I'm looking for. After viewing Tom's video (which confirms that behavior), I'm back off the fence and will purchase PFE tonight. With that said, it's not perfect... you should not get a "radar contact" every time you switch to the next sector (only on departure or if your radar service was previously terminated due to limited radar coverage). The 50 degree intercept to the localizer was also a bit disconcerting; but all in all, PFE looks very well done. WIth all the added enhancements, I do wonder why the old PF2000 program is still required - plugging the data directly into the "emulator" program seems like it would be a lot less clunky... but I can live with it.

 

The PF2000 program is needed because FSX version requires that format as input, then it adds to it all the added features the FSX program incorporates. That's why it's called an emulator.

 

Another feature of PFE worth noting, is how it handles chatter, if you choose not to fly with AI aircraft. The other ATC programs do this with canned chatter, that has nothing to do with the flight you are flying. Not PFE! It will use itself to actually emulate AI based on the flight plan you are flying. There are options to include/exclude specific airlines for the airport pair you are flying.

[MadDog 353]

 

 

The sim ATC and all others will treat each rwy as open for both landing and take-off at the same time. So you will have AI landing and taking-off from the same runway. It's unrealistic to say the least. The sim ATC will simply vector you to the nearest into wind rwy. You have to close rwys for landing and/or take-off both in Afcad and in PFE otherwise you end up with chaos. Closing the rwys means a more realistic situation. I can arrive at any STAR and PFE will either vector me or allow me to do a radar approach. SID's are rwy specific and are easily set-up in PFE.

 

Agree with the permanent afcad fixes. As I understand it, you need to close both ends of an individual runway to arrivals or departures for it to work. Now I understand that Benny was talking about closing one end of the arrival runway to prevent AI confusion in calm winds. Personally... rather than mess with the afcad before each trip, I'll probably chance it and hope that Opus gives me a bit of wind on arrival (I may have to change my thinking come summer when the winds really calm down).

 

Many SIDs/DPs are NOT runway specific... but I'll concede that there a whole lot more runway-specific SIDs than STARS (and many FMS computers won't let you enter a SID without a runway). On the other hand, you should be able to enter a STAR without specifying the arrival runway. Many airlines go ahead and file the STAR (and even the SID) in their flightplans and the STAR is issued as part of the clearance on the ground.  In the U.S., STARS are normally only changed in the air if there is weather along the route. That's why I don't get real excited about ProATC/X's dynamic STAR functionality.

[bennyboy75 85]

If you've got a decent bit of wind then you shouldn't have any problems. I'm an afcad fiddler as it means there won't be any annoying surprises when I'm on the arrival.

 

The best thing about PFE is the way you hear the ai traffic doing real life stuff. If you're in a queue for takeoff you'll hear ai cleared one by one and as you depart you'll hear the ones behind you join the departure frequency. On arrival similarly you can build 'the picture' as they call it of where everyone else is around you as they get handed off to the tower and onto ground. It's really quite nifty. It's just a shame that the interface via proflight (a very dated looking piece of FS98-era software) is a bit clunky.

[vololiberista 205]

With PFE there are in effect two programmes. PF2000 and PFE. The only time one has to use the PF2000 part is to compile the adv flight plans. Everything else should be done using the PFE "envelope". Apparently the coding for PF2000 cannot be accessed so it can't be changed. The learning curve is steep but once a good FP has been set-up it works really well.

[ZKOKQ 984]

Yes, PFE is only as good as your flight plan. If your FP is good, PFE will do the business.

 

I us Pro ATCX when flying in Europe, sometimes, as I am just watching this software develop, so PFE will still be my preferred choice for the foreseeable future.

 

PATC - X is crap when flying down under, it really is. Just does not have the immersion, and calls every radar sector, and in NZ there is not many, but every 5 flamin' mins, it tells you to contact radar control.

 

PFE works really well when flying in OZ and NZ, even has an Aussie accent, which I can put up with, even though I am not an Aussie.

It is the only ATC addon that knows we exist down this part of the world, where RC4 seems more USA influenced, and PATC is Europe influenced.

So good on Dave March for not forgetting us antipodeans when he developed PFE.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,931]

 

 

It is the only ATC addon that knows we exist down this part of the world, where RC4 seems more USA influenced, and PATC is Europe influenced.

 

RC4 has two sets of rules - FAA and ICAO. Australia will come under ICAO rules so in that respect it will behave no different when you're flying in Oz than in Europe.

 

The program was extensively tested by both FAA and ICAO Air-Traffic Controllers and passed their strict checks.

[HansRoaming 73]

Anyway, yes do mention it, please. A networked VoxATC with user place-able network display would be very interesting indeed. I am using an enclosed cockpit with scenery (only) projected on a 10' screen in front. I don't want anything else spoiling that view! ;-)

 

Regards

Pete

 

I emailed him and got the following in his response:

 

Networking the VoxATC panels is on my list of things to do. There's a

new release that's in the fina; stages of beta testing, as soon as

that's done I'll be looking at adding features like this.

 

 

So looks like it's worth you linking up together to produce some awesomeness

[red_october 0]

Been looking at a replacement for FSX ATC. Looks like I'll be putting my money on PFE. Now where's my wallet.....

[red_october 0]

OK, I've just bought PFE and it's not working for me at all. Followed the instructions and converted an IFR flight plan, then complied it. But when I clicked on Connect to FS, it bombed out and gave me this error "You need to rebuild the PFE databases". Looks like a dud purchase at this time    :(

 

Asked for assistance in the PFE support forum, but there's hardly anyone on it. Much appreciated if anyone here can help. Running Win 7 64bit, btw.

 

PS - does it actually work in Win 7 64bit???     :(

[nam1394 10]

Did you rebuild PFE database?