More realistic ATC rather than the standard.

[Samaritano 303]

Here you go!

 

http://library.avsim.net/search.php?SearchTerm=Thomas+J+Cain&CatID=root&Go=Search

Thanks for sharing these mods but I'm having a hard time trying to understand your readme.

I start EditVoicepack but don't know how to go about "extracting from the ICAO set".

Can you give some advice.?

Sorry about the confusion.

TIA.

[vololiberista 205]

There are no memory issues with PFE at all!

[Ray Proudfoot 8,903]

When ATC gives you altitude clearances, you have more than five or ten seconds to start complying, before they start chewing you out and threatening to turn you in to the authorities.  That's not what I call realistic.

In real life, ATC tries to be very helpful.  RC4 makes you feel like you have a prison camp guard on the other end for ATC.  I have it, but quit using it because it doesn't give an enjoyable experience.

 

Robert,

 

Do you respond to ATC instructions or do you leave it to the co-pilot? The co-pilot will respond immediately whereas if you have to you can leave the acknowledgement for several seconds and that will give you more time to dial in the new altitude.

 

But even when the co-pilot is responding I find it easy enough to twiddle the altitude knob for the next flight level. How quickly you can do that is difficult for me to judge. Of course you should be anticipating the instruction to the next flight level - up or down so when it does come you can respond pretty quickly.

 

There are a couple of things that I find frustrating in v4 but not enough to put me off the whole product. With Pro-ATCX unavailable for FS9 users I consider RC4 to be the best overall package. I'm just a beta tester. I have no financial involvement with the product.

 

Should JD decide to continue development of v5 I'm sure this is something that can be looked at anyway.

[vololiberista 205]

There are many though that would say RC v5 would just be a catch-up to PFE.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,903]

There are many though that would say RC v5 would just be a catch-up to PFE.

Given we started work on SIDs and STARs around 2 years ago I would dispute that. Ultimately all ATC packages should be capable of the same functionality. How you design, code and present it will all be different. Each will make their choice dependent on various factors.

 

And RC5, should it continue, will remain available to FS9 users. ProATCX won't.

[red_october 0]

Oookay, my PFE is now working with FSX after rebuilding the database, so thanks guys!

 

Now to set it up properly   :rolleyes:

[mwilk 1,100]

OK, I've managed to rebuild the database now, thanks for the info guys! :good:

 

Will test PFE with FSX later, other priorities beckon at the moment...

 

Be aware that PFE has a little bit of a learning curve. My biggest problem is getting the TOD right. I find myself being given descent clearance either too soon or too late.

[vololiberista 205]

Given we started work on SIDs and STARs around 2 years ago I would dispute that. Ultimately all ATC packages should be capable of the same functionality. How you design, code and present it will all be different. Each will make their choice dependent on various factors.

 

And RC5, should it continue, will remain available to FS9 users. ProATCX won't.

You "started" work on SID's and STAR's two years ago??!

I've been using them all that time in PFE.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,903]

You "started" work on SID's and STAR's two years ago??!

I've been using them all that time in PFE.

 

Whilst the announcement on a cessation on development was made in July last year actual development stopped well before that.

 

There's nothing to stop people integrating SIDs and STARs into a flight plan. I've done it quite a lot.

[ray hughes 165]

This is for Ray Proudfoot.

Ray, I can see you are being a sterling champion of Radar Contact and are proactive at responding, so thank you for your observations and questions.

 

When I stated previously that I found RC4 "too fiddly" I had long ago decided that in it's present incarnation I would give it a miss and see if any other ATC program would offer alternatives. While RC4, from memory was rigidly authentic, I didn't feel the electronic voices added anything to the immersion. You may be currently working on this with your present intentions with RC5, but to my mind this is vaporware at the moment and not something I can realistically throw into the mix as a consideration.

 

To be fair, I am not exactly thrilled either with the steps required to properly use ATC within FSX for the other two products I am considering. It as has been pointed out before, this integration of 3rd party ATC into FSX must be compiled this way in order for it to work successfully. Ideally, it would be great if someone could rewrite the FSX ATC code within the simulation, but that would require a release from Microsoft and pose the question of how would this programmer be compensated? (donations? - anything else would be a copyright nightmare.)

 

And by the way, for late Spring, reading your local Temps, it seems a might cool still

[Ray Proudfoot 8,903]

 

 

This is for Ray Proudfoot.

Ray, I can see you are being a sterling champion of Radar Contact and are proactive at responding, so thank you for your observations and questions.

Hi Ray. I am trying to be impartial in this debate but obviously I have a lot of experience in using RC4. I have had one experience of Pro-ATCX at a friends but it would be unfair to make comments based on that one experience. I've never tried PFE.

 

 

 

When I stated previously that I found RC4 "too fiddly" I had long ago decided that in it's present incarnation I would give it a miss and see if any other ATC program would offer alternatives. While RC4, from memory was rigidly authentic, I didn't feel the electronic voices added anything to the immersion. You may be currently working on this with your present intentions with RC5, but to my mind this is vaporware at the moment and not something I can realistically throw into the mix as a consideration.

Regarding the rigid authenticity that was discussed by the beta team of which I was a member. The reply from the ATC controllers as I remember it was that ATC's first priority is for safety so there won't be much deviation from the procedures. Having said that it was suggested by the British ATC contributor that some variety could be introduced without compromising 'safety'. Assigning different flight levels during the climb and descents for example. These were discussed but not adopted.

 

Regarding the 'electronic' voices. These are real people who made these recordings including myself. And as Pete Dowson has said earlier in this thread he considers the voices to be very close to how we really sound. If you're running RC4 on the same PC as FS that will impact on the fluidity. Try it on another PC. It does make a difference.

 

 

 

To be fair, I am not exactly thrilled either with the steps required to properly use ATC within FSX for the other two products I am considering. It as has been pointed out before, this integration of 3rd party ATC into FSX must be compiled this way in order for it to work successfully. Ideally, it would be great if someone could rewrite the FSX ATC code within the simulation, but that would require a release from Microsoft and pose the question of how would this programmer be compensated? (donations? - anything else would be a copyright nightmare.)

 

ATC programs require to know exactly where you are for any taxiway and runway for every airport in the world for it to operate correctly. The process to create those files only needs running when you add new scenery. It's not a big job to update those files. As far as Microsoft releasing the source code that won't happen nice though it would be.

 

Depending on what JD will announce in a few weeks I may try an alternative if development of RC5 ends. Writing and supporting these type of programs is extremely labour intensive so I can understand if he couldn't devote time to it. JD has a full-time job so you will apppreciate it doesn't leave much time especially for a family man.

 

But just to return to RC4. I believe it does many things extremely well. We seem to hear a lot of comments about 'robotic voices' but when you have a fraction of the resources available to Microsoft of course compromises have to be made. But for a $50 program I think it does a brilliant job. Over 3000 separate wav files have to be recorded for a controller and not many less for a pilot. It's a massive effort for those willing to help.

 

I understand ProATCX has far fewer so more people may be willing to record a voice set. And you probably won't fly in all parts of the world but if you did decide to fly from Ulan Bator in Mongolia to Cape Town you would have all the correct centres enunciated. Can other programs do that?

 

 

And by the way, for late Spring, reading your local Temps, it seems a might cool still

A couple of nice days earlier in May but it's back to unseasonally cool temps and rain. Global warming is passing us by. :(

[Pete Dowson 558]

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

It looks like it is more than just the displays that need to be moved. My headset is not connected to my FSX PC and I don't want it to be. I have programs like Radar Contact, ProATC/X, and IYP running on a Client PC, and that is good for separating headset (ATC) and overhead (CoPilot) sounds on the cockpit, leaving the main 5.1 sound from FSX to its own system.

 

The problem really is that to make VoxATC run on the Client, as I want it do do, would probably be a big job, as it is now but a "Gauge" and probably dependent upong FSX's support in most matters.

 

Regards

Pete

[Andrew Hansen 37]

I'm an instrument rated pilot here in the USA and, from my own personal use, VoxATC is by FAR the most realistic experience I've had with ATC interaction in a simulated environment.     This is not simply because of the voice interaction, but also due to the sheer fidelity of the complete environment the program simulates.     The voice synthesis aspect of VoxATC does take tweaking and some trial and error to get everything tuned to each individual's tastes, but it's very much worth the effort.

 

VoxATC simulates both IFR and VFR flights, and dynamically assigns SIDS and STARS depending on wind direction and runway use.     In addition, VoxATC utlitizes AIRAC databases and has awareness of airways as well as navigational fixes.     The vectoring alogorithms are suburb in my opinion.

 

Radar Contact has a lot of realistic features, but it's fairly old technology by today's standards (last update circa 2007!).     RC frequently vectors me on endless downwinds, fails to properly interact with FSUIPC and get the correct destination weather with AS2012, and just plain gets goofy on a regular basis.    I got a little tired of being vectored to the localizer after a holding period and trying to descend from 12000 ft to the 2800 glideslope intercept 10 miles out, lol.     RC is like a box of chocolates on every flight:  you never know what you're going to get.      Sometimes RC works flawlessly, but it's just too inconsistent.  

 

Please consider trying the demo of VoxATC when you have enough free time to properly run through the tutorials and features.    It really is a game changer and one of the most underrated add-ons ever for FSX.     You just have to experience it to know what I'm talking about.

[tf51d 284]

I've watched a few videos with VOXATC, and it does sound good. Reading the documentation though, it seems it's missing a couple of features, that PFE and/or RC has, one in particular that I use when I fly over the Atlantic or Pacific. That is Oceanic SELCAL positioning reports. It makes me feel I'm being watched over as I cross the abiss :LOL: It also doesn't seem to support emergency calls, or am I'm missing something. To me, this feature is a little less important, but in conjunction with FS2Crew Emergency! product for the NGX would add to the experience. As for voice interaction, both RC and PFE can achieve this very well with Multi-Crew-Experience (MCE). I know it's an extra expense, unless you have it already (Which I do.) but it does the job, plus gives you copilot/checklist capability. Except for the aircraft FS2Crew handles, I highly recommend MCE whether or not used with RC/PFE. Unfortunately I can't use it in my videos, because my video capture software (GameCam- used for performance) doesn't support multiple audio sources. One other feature of PFE that sets it apart from the others, is if you want to fly without AI, while the other ATC programs use canned chatter that has nothing to do with he flight you are on or it's location to supplement the programs own user ATC, PFE will actually simulate a session based on your flightplan and your origin and destination. I do agree though with the benefits of using up to date AIRAC data. I haven't had an issue with PFE's older data set yet though!

[spesimen 135]

i used rc4 for years and i think it's solid. for a beginner just looking for something better than default atc i think it might be the best option.

 

lately i've been using voxATC for similar reasons as others, i wanted more specific STAR support mainly.

 

setting up and flying seems 10x easier than PFE, there's no preflight stuff, if your flight plan ends on a transition it will pick a star based on that and the active runway. and it already has a library of sids/stars defined, i dunno where it gets that from but it works reasonably well and seems fairly complete.

 

if you deviate from the sid/star you will get vectors to put you back on it. like the others it will eventually vector you off the star for approach but it seems to do it at a reasonable place usually at 10-20nm out.

 

cheers

-andy crosby