My only issue with ProATC that might need to be cleaned up a bit is the vectoring to the glideslope. This has little or no realism whatsoever and I'm glad they are not handling real flights.

 

My main issue too indeed. In fact, there IS no vectoring at all. They just leave you at it at the end of the STAR. 'Good luck with the approach and we hope you'll make it.' Something like that. ^_^ Although I also don't like the odd altitude assignements which have you going up and down or not down at all. And the low amount of usuable voices is also a bummer. The main thing I DO like about ProATC is the automatic assignement of SIDs and STARs. The ATC itself doesn't 'C' much and can indeed do with a complete overhaul. I stopped using ProATC for a few months already (but I also stopped flying the 737NGX and am now only flying the RealAir Legacy again: if I would fly the 737NGX once more, I probably WOULD use ProATC despite it flaws).

 

 

PFE is great when it works but setting up SIDS and STARS is a chore and it suffers from the most enormous brain farts at times.

 

I found an easy way to handle them, is set your flightplan up without a SID/Star. Then in PFE, set the first waypoint as end of sid, and last waypoint as beginning of STAR. PFE will allow you to fly any  SID you want, and upon reaching the last waypoint, any STAR. At some point you'll be cleared for approach at your own discretion and assigned a landing runway. Fly the approach down via VNAV, FLCH whatever. When you get close to FAF, it will turn you over to approach and vector you from there. Or you can request to fly her in yourself at your discretion. The only hickup is on freq changes, it will still think you are at your last assigned altitude, so you'll hear you saying "Speedbird 2302 heavy with you at 7000 for 14000. When you are actually descending.  ATC though itself will not give you an altitude alert. 

I have just taken the PATC plunge and right now I rather regret it. It's an awful lot of money for what is so clearly work in progress software, although I can certainly appreciate the potential. Why do I never find posts like this until just after I've parted with my hard earned cash?

 

I had been reading other threads that suggested it was very much improved, but the horror stories here make me wonder if it's worth possibly ruining otherwise well executed NGX flights. My first flight last night did nothing for my confidence. It soon descended into farce when PATC wouldn't go beyond the pushback instruction at ENBR. Maybe rookie error, of course, but I'm still puzzling over where I went wrong.

 

What does occur to me is how much overlap there now is with FS2 Crew, GSX, FsBuild, Aivlasoft EFB and any ATC program you care to mention. What would be awesome would be if all these developers could combine to create a streamlined, all-encompassing tubeliner support software that does it all. There's enough memory consuming soup without all these add-ons that boast constantly repeating features. How many flight planners do we need? Maybe more focused feature sets would lead to less required updates and better products out of the starting gate?

 

I'll be trying to refine the PATC experience this weekend and to be fair will report back here if I have misjudged it. I sure hope I don't have to mothball it until the devs smooth out the contours. Yet again I seem to be paying to participate in a beta.

Thanks again for the additional input, very helpful. I'm going to wait and see how the various ATC products develop (or not).

 

But if I understand you gents correctly, there is no SDK safe way to control AI?

 

EDIT: I've done some research into what's involved and even started a design specification for an ATC product, but I soon realized that good ATC is considerably more difficult than I initially thought -- and I had assumed AI could be control via the SDK. I can easily see a quality ATC product being $100 or more and a $5/mo recurring subscription to keep the data updated. Recurring subscription would also help ensure continued development and support (assuming of course there are enough subscribers) ... interest in ATC does seem high, so that's good.

... interest in ATC does seem high, so that's good.

Some fair points there, but the main problem is with developers releasing products with gaping holes in their hulls. In the case of PATC, it seems that slow progress is being made. Caveat Emptor clearly applies.

I have just taken the PATC plunge and right now I rather regret it. It's an awful lot of money for what is so clearly work in progress software. Why do I never find posts like this until just after I've parted with my hard earned cash?

 

I had been reading other threads that suggested it was very much improved, but the horror stories here make me wonder if it's worth possibly ruining otherwise well executed NGX flights. My first flight last night did nothing for my confidence. It soon descended into farce when PATC wouldn't go beyond the pushback instruction at ENBR. Maybe rookie error, of course, but I'm still puzzling over where I went wrong.

 

What does occur to me is how much overlap there now is with FS2 Crew, GSX, FsBuild, Aivlasoft EFB and any ATC program you care to mention. What would be awesome would be if all these developers could combine to create a streamlined, all-encompassing tubeliner support software that does it all. There's enough memory consuming soup without all these add-ons that boast constantly repeating features. How many flight planners do we need? Maybe more focused feature sets would lead to less required updates and better products out of the starting gate?

 

I'll be trying to refine the PATC experience this weekend. I sure hope I don't have to mothball it until the devs smooth out the contours. Yet again I seem to be paying to participate in a beta.

I totally agree with you on this. I'm currently working on some video tutorial flights with a real Dash 8 Q400 pilot and he was astonished at just how bloody difficult it is trying to get everything to play nicely together. Most of the stress from flying in fsx is when the ATC program has a brain fart, then GSX decides to park you against a brick wall (actually GSX is one of the more reliable programs out there!) fs2crew mishears you and put the flaps down instead of changing the baro pressure and then active sky decides to reload the weather after you've planned your flight with completely different winds to the ones you've planned.

 

Pro ATC X actually has a lot of this stuff on board. It has crew voices, can manage basic automation tasks, cabin announcements and the like and a built in planner. If the ATC side could be perfected then the other elements to the program could be brought up to the standards of EFB, GSX and FS2Crew and you could pretty much run with just one program. With the 777 out soon and supporting time compression we will soon literally have the world as our oyster. Heathrow to LA? Will take as long as Heathrow to Dublin does now in real time. It's such a shame that the one element that would put the icing on the FSX cake - a properly realistic ATC is the only real missing link now. Pro ATC X has so much promise but at the moment it's not there.

As a real world pilot, I use Radar Contact 4 and have had absolutely 0 issues with it.  I see it in a different perspective for things that could be improved, as I see the way things work in the real world, but for those people that aren't real pilots than ignorance is bliss and I don't think they'd have any issues.

 

Of the videos I have seen of ProATC, the voices sound absolutely awful and are chopped and cut to be used by the ATC voice.  Perhaps it was an old version (I would hope).  There are add-on voice packs for RC4 (available for free on Avsim) that speed up voice transmissions, etc. that are very nice.

Agree, quality ATC is the big missing piece for FSX ... and it's obviously a very difficult piece to do well give the input in this thread.

 

But there does seem to be a lot of interest in it, which means a lot of revenue potential -- and given it's ATC I would imagine a more "compatible" path with whatever P3D releases (and who knows, maybe even for Xplane if it has SDK support to allow a robust ATC).

 

 

 

Pro ATC X has so much promise but as the moment it's not there

 

Sadly I've read statements like this in many thread across the internet ... some going back several years.  Maybe Tom needs to start an ATC poll "Use it All the time, Use it some of the time, Never use it".  I say Tom, because when Tom speaks, people respond (not so subtle  hint).

As a real world pilot, I use Radar Contact 4 and have had absolutely 0 issues with it. I see it in a different perspective for things that could be improved, as I see the way things work in the real world, but for those people that aren't real pilots than ignorance is bliss and I don't think they'd have any issues.

 

Of the videos I have seen of ProATC, the voices sound absolutely awful and are chopped and cut to be used by the ATC voice. Perhaps it was an old version (I would hope). There are add-on voice packs for RC4 (available for free on Avsim) that speed up voice transmissions, etc. that are very nice.

Radar Contact does the job but it's very clunky and a bit predictable (head down now, I need you level in 30 miles etc) which gets dull after many flights. What we need is a dynamic ATC program that works more like everyday ATC. Rarely (in Europe anyway, can't speak for the US) do you complete a SID and a STAR. You generally start one off and get radar headings in both cases or a direct to. You'll be asked to be level at certain points in the plan. You might get your planned flight level, you might not. I would pay for a proper high quality ATC add on that did it like real life.

I have gone back to using PFE. Least I know it works, and works well in New Zealand airspace. PATC does not work very well in NZ, it has more radar sectors than the USA, with ATC telling you to change freq every 10 seconds. Drives me nuts. NZ is the same size as the UK, but might as well be flying in Russia.

Have asked numerous times for this to be looked at, and each time it has not been acknowledged. That has made me a very unhappy user. If only the developer input was the same as Opus, I could bear it, but oh well, my fault for purchasing it.

Radar Contact does the job but it's very clunky and a bit predictable (head down now, I need you level in 30 miles etc) which gets dull after many flights. What we need is a dynamic ATC program that works more like everyday ATC. Rarely (in Europe anyway, can't speak for the US) do you complete a SID and a STAR. You generally start one off and get radar headings in both cases or a direct to. You'll be asked to be level at certain points in the plan. You might get your planned flight level, you might not. I would pay for a proper high quality ATC add on that did it like real life.

 

I understand but you also have to consider that it is a computer program.  It can only program so many outcomes out of a given situation.  Real world aviation is fluid, dynamic and ever-changing - that is why you can never plan to 100% accuracy.  Computer programmed ATC obviously is not and cannot be.

 

As far as being able to follow SIDs or STARs, it completely depends on the airport you are flying from/to and the type of traffic load.  Flying into or out of major airports in RC, I frequently don't get the full SID or STAR without getting vectors first.  Being at a specific altitude at a certain point is extremely common in the US but, as I said previously, it completely depends on the airport and congestion levels.  Is it 100% realistic?  Of course not - but it can't be.  If you want real ATC your best bet is flying on VATSIM or IVAO, which of course has its own issues of people being online to provide services.

The shame of it all is that I truly believe that the developer of PATC is a very smart guy and really wants to deliver and I think he will eventually succeed. The problem as I see it is that he is only one person trying to field bug reports from all angles and trying to developer this software into a comprehensive ATC add on at the same time. Consequently progress is slow and release commitments delayed. Having said that, I still believe he will deliver eventually and am willing to wait, even though it frustrates the hell out of me sometimes.

 

I definitely feel it has the potential of replacing RC4, which to me has plenty of faults as well and future development on that software is in doubt, not to mention its barking at you when you can't descend a 747 through 5,000ft in seconds.

 

Regards,

I understand but you also have to consider that it is a computer program.  It can only program so many outcomes out of a given situation.  Real world aviation is fluid, dynamic and ever-changing - that is why you can never plan to 100% accuracy.  Computer programmed ATC obviously is not and cannot be.

 

 

That is why i like to fly online using Vatsim, ofcourse there you are limited to where the action is, however if you participcate in the flyin events, especially the big ones like "cross the pond" it is very dynamic and unpredictable.

The shame of it all is that I truly believe that the developer of PATC is a very smart guy and really wants to deliver and I think he will eventually succeed. The problem as I see it is that he is only one person trying to field bug reports from all angles and trying to developer this software into a comprehensive ATC add on at the same time. Consequently progress is slow and release commitments delayed. Having said that, I still believe he will deliver eventually and am willing to wait, even though it frustrates the hell out of me sometimes.

 

I definitely feel it has the potential of replacing RC4, which to me has plenty of faults as well and future development on that software is in doubt, not to mention its barking at you when you can't descend a 747 through 5,000ft in seconds.

 

Regards,

+1

 

Well said

 

 

oh well, my fault for purchasing it.

 

I guess I feel the same, but really is that good enough when you're talking about the kind of money this costs? I appreciate that we are talking one man band development here, but it certainly isn't one man band pricing is it!