All of these programs suffer from the tricks that addon airport developers have to use like fake parallel runways, so none will be perfect.  Each has their own strength and weakness so you really have to choose what is right for you. Do your homework read their forums esp. the problem threads. ProATC at least tries to get you down to a realist descent profile( but also sometimes fails). Most cannot control AI properly and you will have problems if you throw in another traffic package like UT2. I have used VOX atc and ProATCX both are ok but lately I have just been frustrated and stopped using them. Also some people like inflight emergencies on occasion as provided by PMDG and FS2Crew ...could one of these handle it for you asking for a divert or alternate airport?

 

The other overlooked thing of these programs is the additional workload and preparation required to make it work. Keeping the ARIAC up to date to match your aircraft ARIAC. You can spend upwards of another half hour preparing your FP in your aircraft, then the ATC program then other programs like EFB. Kind of a drag after working all day and you just want to fly one good flight...

 

I've signed up for VATSIM and have looked at PilotEdge as well and think more and more each day that these may be better options than trying to force yet another addon to work but I haven't jumped into these yet as the people seem rather aloof and pretentious to newbies (just my initial impression) but it could be just me afraid to make mistakes in front of real people as well...I think they frown on it if you suddenly have to leave the PC because of realworld commitments or have to leave suddenly.

 

In summary:

What do you want it to do, how much time do you have and how much realism do you want - It's up to you, no one here can tell you what's best for you to use, only what each one is good and bad at and offer opinions and experiences with said programs.

I've used VOX ATC, PFE, and Radar Contact. As others have said, they all have their merits and frustrations. I mostly now use default ATC, since I discovered that some fudging is available.  Besides default ATC's annoying and sometimes constant vectoring near your arrival airport, there is another problem in that ATC is unaware of terrain, so that you risk being vectored into a mountain or hill.

 

As I said above, there is some fudging available.  First of all, you can fly a STAR even though FS is unaware of it.  This was suggested above by someone; make the STAR part of your flight plan. As you apporach your destination you will be assigned a runway with expected vectors.  At that point, choose "select another approach," and ATC will tell you to stand by, at which point you scroll through optional approaches on the ATC menu. Select the approach you desire, and then select "request appraoch from ATC," and it will be granted to you. It will sometimes ask you for a transition preference. Once given you will be cleared to the transition.

 

Sometimes a problem you encounter is that the charts you have no longer agree with FS's 7-year-old database. Runway headings have changed due to magnetic drift, or frequncies of navaids (or even their 3-character identifiers) or even their locations have changed.

 

Recently I was flying into Anchorage. In today's world ANC VOR is located on the field. In FS it is located on an island several miles SW of the airport.  I hadn't noticed this until I was close to making a DME ARC approach. Fortunately ATC gave me the distance of the radius of the arc from the VOR on the island, and that worked OK for intercepting the localizer for RWY 14, which, by the way is now RWY 15.  As a result I had a satisfying ending to my flight.

Actually not so strange, once you understand what it's doing. It will vector you to a parallel coarse with the runway, but since it doesn't take wind in consideration it will give you vectors back on course once you drift more than 4nm from it's plotted course. This is what may seem strange.

 

 

It doesn't take wind into consideration? So it could vector you to the opposite end to other landing traffic? Ouch!

 

 

At about 27nm from the runway, it will torn you base (Sometimes there's a 30 degree vector right before.) At final approach clearance it will turn you 60 degrees to intercept the ILS at about a 30 degree angle. (If it's a visual you won't get clearance until you are near approach course.) Take out the corrections for wind, and it's pretty similar to some procedure approaches I've seen.

 

 

27 miles out you're vectored to base? Again, ouch! RC4 (depending on approach and runway in use) gives you a downwind and base leg intercepting the localiser around 10-13 nm out and at an angle of 30 degrees.

 

I accept it will do a job of sorts but so do the default aircraft. We all know the popularity of quality 3rd party aircraft and independent ATC programs also raise the bar on the default ATC. If anyone is serious about flying as close as possible to r/w procedures then one of the 3 ATC programs is a must. And although some may say I'm biased I do think RC4 does a very good job of controlling your flight.

 

 

ProATC at least tries to get you down to a realist descent profile( but also sometimes fails). Most cannot control AI properly and you will have problems if you throw in another traffic package like UT2. I have used VOX atc and ProATCX both are ok but lately I have just been frustrated and stopped using them. Also some people like inflight emergencies on occasion as provided by PMDG and FS2Crew ...could one of these handle it for you asking for a divert or alternate airport?

 

RC4 will also get you down properly but in mountainous areas you should always choose NOTAMS and descent clearances will include "if able". RC4 has a file of minimum safe altitudes for each airport so won't vector you into a mountain providing you enable NOTAMS. In such cases you should follow an approach chart as RC knows of the terrain but not its direction.

 

The other overlooked thing of these programs is the additional workload and preparation required to make it work. Keeping the ARIAC up to date to match your aircraft ARIAC. You can spend upwards of another half hour preparing your FP in your aircraft, then the ATC program then other programs like EFB. Kind of a drag after working all day and you just want to fly one good flight...

 

RC4 doesn't require access to AIRAC data. It simply uses the lat/lon for each waypoint to check you're on course. Just load a PLN file and you're ready to go.

 

I've signed up for VATSIM and have looked at PilotEdge as well and think more and more each day that these may be better options than trying to force yet another addon to work but I haven't jumped into these yet as the people seem rather aloof and pretentious to newbies (just my initial impression) but it could be just me afraid to make mistakes in front of real people as well...I think they frown on it if you suddenly have to leave the PC because of realworld commitments or have to leave suddenly.

 

VATSIM et al isn't for the beginner. You're expected to know all the procedures and the terminology. How many of us can enter a hold and stay there until directed. That's one element of RC I was hoping would be enhanced in v5. Blood yourself using RC4 or others as it allows you to fly anywhere in the world without needing a human being at your destination.

I can't answer the question asked because I've never used Radar Contact.

 

I do use ProATC-X though and:

 

1) it works for me, every time, unless I make a mistake or there's some gap in the published nav data

2) it's miles better than the default FSX ATC if you fly airliners in Europe with dynamically allocated SIDS & STARS

3) none of those irritating altitude and heading prompts when you are flying the published flightplan

 

It does have its failings:

 

1) lack of a anything like a full set of callsigns in the vocabulary

2) lack of interaction with AI which makes taxi-ing  more exciting than it should be 

3) heavily European accents in the default voice sets - but then, FSX ATC is all-American.

 

 Would I recommend it?  From what I gather, all of the various offerings have their drawbacks so you need to make your own decision based on what you can find on YouTube etc.  All I can say is I like ProATC-X.

 

This is just a scenario I thought of. Say you are flying to a very busy airport and will be landing with planes in front of and behind you. Does the default ATC do a good job of managing all these different approaches or do you need one of these programs to handle those situations better?

 

Also do AI planes fly real departures and approaches or do they just take off and head for the airport they are assigned to go to?

 

None of the ATC manage a/c separation. You have to add something like AI smooth for that. And no default ATC as already said does not do SIDs or STARs in any shape or form.

 

 

 

I have never saw that PFE does ground control, or clearances to cross the runway, etc. I had numerous situations with AI airliners going directly into my plane. I think the only cure for this is to use default ATC and PFE at the same time until takeoff?

PFE does give clearances to cross rwys. But it doesn't "control" AI so it's up to you to ensure you taxi safely. PFE will however give you directions to/from the rwy that avoid accidentally being head-on to other traffic.

 

 

 

 I was hoping would be enhanced in v5.

The eternal question for those who use RC4. Considered opinion says that if/ever/when there is an RC5 it will bring RC4 up to PFE standard.

HI,

 

Radar Contact is the only one I use - I have used it of years and I love it - its interface is very basic (but it does not get in the way during flight) and it has lots of features.

One of my favourite utitilies ever for FS.

It is a pity its development has frozen but the current version is very solid and bug free.

 

Happy fliying,

 

Olivier

You guys are crazy for not flying online. All of these programs are toys in comparison, and they do not really simulate air traffic control accurately enough to be used with high fidelity simulations in my opinion. Don't be scared, educate yourself and start flying online today

You guys are crazy for not flying online. All of these programs are toys in comparison, and they do not really simulate air traffic control accurately enough to be used with high fidelity simulations in my opinion. Don't be scared, educate yourself and start flying online today

 

I have been flying combat sims online for years with humans, a much better simming experience to be sure.

 

HOWEVER, with civi sims this is completely different.  ATC coverage with VATSIM etc is always spotty at best and civi flying does not generally need nor encouragement cooperative multiplay, with the sole exception of the VRS TP kit, of which I am spending alot of time with online.

You guys are crazy for not flying online

 

I flew online for some time, but I prefer now using Radar Contact - off course, human contact is better, but flying online is not really "harder" than using Radar Contact.

With young kids in the house, I use FSX whenever I have the time and often the airports I want to fly from and/or to are not controlled - some controllers leave while I am in the air....so while flying online is great, Radar Contact is quite close without the contact and without the flavor of real control, but in my case this is a great substitute.

 

Also, what you learn using Radar Contact will be very helpful the day you will want to try real control.

 

I will go back to IVAO when I have more time, but in the meantime I really will go on using Radar Contact.

 

Happy flying,

 

Olivier

You guys are crazy for not flying online. All of these programs are toys in comparison, and they do not really simulate air traffic control accurately enough to be used with high fidelity simulations in my opinion. Don't be scared, educate yourself and start flying online today

 

- I fly mostly after 10pm whn the kid and wife is sleeping, so no microphone for me

- I must learn ATC phraseology, and I still don't feel very comfortable speking english with all that mumbo jumbo

- I have bigger freedom where to fly when I fly offline

I've used Pro ATC for the last 6 months or so now. The latest version for me is very stable, and I've had numerous successful flights. The only one problem is vectoring at the end of the flight, but it's handling of SID/STARs wayyy makes up for that.

 

I do hear good things about PFE and do wonder, how does that one handle SID/STARS and can you update it's nav database?

I've used Pro ATC for the last 6 months or so now. The latest version for me is very stable, and I've had numerous successful flights. The only one problem is vectoring at the end of the flight, but it's handling of SID/STARs wayyy makes up for that.

 

I do hear good things about PFE and do wonder, how does that one handle SID/STARS and can you update it's nav database?

The only program that can do dynmi SID/Star assignments is ProATC-X, it's it's biggest feature over the others, when it works. In PFE and I believe RC, you need to setup the SID/STARS in your flightplan ahead of time. Done right it works pretty well.

 

 

The eternal question for those who use RC4. Considered opinion says that if/ever/when there is an RC5 it will bring RC4 up to PFE standard.

 

Fighting talk! :biggrin:  I assume PFE can handle aborted take-offs and emergencies both immediately after take-off and enroute with an option to divert to an alternative airport?

The only program that can do dynmi SID/Star assignments is ProATC-X, it's it's biggest feature over the others, when it works. In PFE and I believe RC, you need to setup the SID/STARS in your flightplan ahead of time. Done right it works pretty well.

Hi Tom,

 

Thought that was the case. I agree Pro ATC isn't perfect..... yet but it will get there eventually. At least it is supported by ongoing development so lets hope that in another year it will be what everyone expects. In fairness its leaps and bounds ahead of what it was when first released!