Radar Contact 4.3 vs Pro ATC X

[ailchim 206]

 

 

- it doesn't work well and constantly during flight (many CTD)
- it is difficult to plan a Route (if you use PFPX, too) - most of the Time the Routes, Sid's and STAR's aren't identic

 

1) It always works for me and I've never had a CTD which had any connection with ProATC-X

 

2) This I'm afraid is the same as applies between many different route planning and FMC products, even those that nominally use the same underlying data.  It's a fault but not just of ProATC-X and you are asking for trouble in using two different route planners & expecting them to come up with the same answer.  Who's to say which is right and which is wrong?  Try importing your PFPX route into ProATC-X rather than letting it calculate its own.

[qqwertz 770]

Don't buy Pro-ATC version 1.2.3.8, which is the current one since May 2013. Quite a few users (including myself) have severe problems with it, such as getting clearance when an AI plane is waiting in front of you, taxi instructions to nowhere, annoying runway offerings etc. For myself, the current version of Pro-ATC is simply not delivering at all on what is described on their web page.

 

Up to spring 2013, Pro-ATC had been praised for its customer support, but that has changed. The developer rarely makes comments on the status of the next version and one of the moderators (rjord) is now deleting any threads in their forum that are critical of Pro-ATC.

 

For instance, I wrote a message that simply asked two questions: 1) whether the developer could give us more information on the current status now that one year had passed since the last update and 2) how long a waiting time for an update would be considered appropriate by the moderators  -- thread deleted, warning per private message that negative posts will not be tolerated anymore.

I then posted another message, just informing the other users of this new policy -- thread deleted, second warning.

 

Sorry, but as a customer who paid a premium price I am simply not impressed by being treated like that.

 

Peter

[messifan10 3]

morad=fjord ! trust me you will NEVER see an update for proatcx,they just keep talking about the update,to make sure people are still buying proatcx,and have hopes for the update.

Fjord just plyaing games with us,there has never been an update underway,fjord is not worth wasting time on.

playing of course

[ailchim 206]

Those having severe problems with ProATC-X are likely to be causing them themselves.  There IS support on the ProATC-X forum for those having genuine technical problems.  Those merely intent on haranguing the developers regarding an update are being referred back to what has already been said on that topic.  There is no point going over and over it. 

 

There are enough people telling you that it DOES work within its limitations to confirm it does work for some.  If it works for some, then it's capable of working for all if they use it properly.

 

That isn't to say it's necessarily the best product for anyone to purchase presently and certainly it's lack of interaction with AI traffic on the ground is a significant failing.  Then again, I believe other ATC programs short circuit the issue by generating their own AI traffic, which I'd find unacceptable, whereas ProATC-X at least tries to let you define your own AI.  

 

A substantial update has been in the works for months and even I wouldn't give you better than 50:50 odds that it will emerge.  But it DOES work as it stands and I for one use it all the time.

[ZKOKQ 984]

I too threw PATC in the bin. And have returned to using PFE. it is great. I did try VOX, but seeing an Air New Zealand domestic 737 flying off the coast of North Africa was a big turn off for me.

[qqwertz 770]

Hi Ailchim,

 

nice to hear that Pro-ATC is working for you. However, I can assure you that I tried everything I could to get it working properly. For 2-3 month I applied about every trick and fix that I could find on the forum. I gave up when I realized a year ago that the latest version still didn't resolve my issues. Many of my major problems with it have also been acknowledged on their forum.

 

What basic functionality would you expect from an ATC program? My answer would be that it guides you from gate to gate while keeping you away from other traffic. I have no issues with Pro-ATC up in the air, but getting totally wrong taxi instructions and contradictory ATC messages (first "wait behind the AI plane", then "cleared for takeoff" while the AI plane is still holding short) just doesn't do it for me.

 

To me, the only advantage the current version has over the default ATC is that you can fly SIDs and STARs (I don't have any use for the moving map or the flight planner because I am using other programs for this). That is a significant advantage, but for me that alone doesn't justify the premium price I had to pay for it.

 

Cheers,

Peter

[wanabflyer 53]

I believe other ATC programs short circuit the issue by generating their own AI traffic, which I'd find unacceptable, whereas ProATC-X at least tries to let you define your own AI.

[/b]

Could you please clarify this statement for me. I do not quite understand what you are telling me here.

 

Regards,

There are enough people telling you that it DOES work within its limitations

 

I wonder how many people would put $75 (CDN) down to purchase this software if this was added to their glowing sales pitch on their web site?

[Ray Proudfoot 8,919]

 

 

I believe other ATC programs short circuit the issue by generating their own AI traffic, which I'd find unacceptable, whereas ProATC-X at least tries to let you define your own AI.

 

I can only speak for Radar Contact but can assure everyone that it does not generate its own Ai. It reacts to that generated by FSX and 3rd party AI programmes such as MyTrafficX.

 

If you, ailchim, are going to make such statements I suggest you get your facts right.

[tf51d 284]

I can only speak for Radar Contact but can assure everyone that it does not generate its own Ai. It reacts to that generated by FSX and 3rd party AI programmes such as MyTrafficX.

 

If you, ailchim, are going to make such statements I suggest you get your facts right.

Same for PFE! The only ATC program that generates it's own AI is VOXATC! Both RC and PFE interacts but does not control (Although RC4 has the ability to freeze AI around you to prevent ground collisions!) FSX generated traffic.

[ailchim 206]

If you, ailchim, are going to make such statements I suggest you get your facts right.

 

I was about to say I my facts were right because the poster tf51d had confirmed VOXATC generates it's own AI, which I knew I'd read somewhere.  However, what I meant to say was SOME other ATC products generate their own AI but I left the SOME out.  I apologise, I wasn't trying to libel other products I haven't used but I did fail to type what I really meant.

 

What I was trying to get across is that people have different priorities.  For me, the fact that ProATC-X DOES allocate SIDS & STARS dynamically according to the weather is a huge benefit.  At the risk or repeating my error, I'll say that I believe I have read that some other products require you to select your SID & STAR manually before you start.  By definition that is only true if the weather which applies when you set up the flight plan doesn't change, if the wind goes around the whole thing is wrong.

 

If you read quite a few of the complaints, you'll see they are from people who are trying to pre-select their SID from their flight planner.  That isn't playing to ProATC's biggest strength and it's also unrealistic: correct me if I'm wrong, in the real world pilots don't know their SID until they get their clearance, which is exactly what ProATC does.  That's even more the case by the time you get to a STAR and the weather has had even more time to change. 

 

On the other hand, ProATC-X doesn't prevent taxi conflicts between you and AI on the ground and that's very annoying.  As a second gripe of mine, its vocabulary doesn't know enough airline callsigns.  I'm not pretending it doesn't have faults.  However, to repeat, it does work within its limitations if used properly.  As I erred by suggesting all other programs generate their own ATC, which is not what I meant to say, imagine how peeved I get when other say point blank that ProATC doesn't work, no ifs, no buts, when I know it does.

[OmniAtlas 93]

So it seems like we've concluded patc is out of the picture for now...that leaves PFe or voxatc

[wanabflyer 53]

So it seems like we've concluded patc is out of the picture for now...that leaves PFe or voxatc

I have used RC4, PFE and VOX ATC. They are all good. It really comes down to personal preference with these three products because they all deliver what they advertise in my opinion. My preference ended up with VOX as my personal preference.

 

Regards.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,919]

I was about to say I my facts were right because the poster tf51d had confirmed VOXATC generates it's own AI, which I knew I'd read somewhere. However, what I meant to say was SOME other ATC products generate their own AI but I left the SOME out. I apologise, I wasn't trying to libel other products I haven't used but I did fail to type what I really meant.

 

Libel is probably over the top but the clarification is appreciated. :smile:

 

What I was trying to get across is that people have different priorities. For me, the fact that ProATC-X DOES allocate SIDS & STARS dynamically according to the weather is a huge benefit. At the risk or repeating my error, I'll say that I believe I have read that some other products require you to select your SID & STAR manually before you start. By definition that is only true if the weather which applies when you set up the flight plan doesn't change, if the wind goes around the whole thing is wrong.

 

 

Whilst RC4 doesn't allow for SIDs and STARs to be chosen after it has started you can include them in your flight plan and any waypoint within 30 miles of the departure airport should be flown over within 1 mile otherwise you'll be chastised. At the other end you have to be down to a specific FL/altitude 40 miles from the arrival airport but you then have the option of flying the STAR if you wish. the alternative is to fly vectors given by RC4.

 

We were working on SIDs and STARs in v5 but once development ceased that was it.

 

If you read quite a few of the complaints, you'll see they are from people who are trying to pre-select their SID from their flight planner. That isn't playing to ProATC's biggest strength and it's also unrealistic: correct me if I'm wrong, in the real world pilots don't know their SID until they get their clearance, which is exactly what ProATC does. That's even more the case by the time you get to a STAR and the weather has had even more time to change.

 

I have had little experience of ProATC-X so can't comment in detail. But I did notice British Airways flights were called as "British Airways" rather than "Speedbird". I would have expected any program that promotes itself as "professional" to get that right.

 

On the other hand, ProATC-X doesn't prevent taxi conflicts between you and AI on the ground and that's very annoying. As a second gripe of mine, its vocabulary doesn't know enough airline callsigns. I'm not pretending it doesn't have faults. However, to repeat, it does work within its limitations if used properly. As I erred by suggesting all other programs generate their own ATC, which is not what I meant to say, imagine how peeved I get when other say point blank that ProATC doesn't work, no ifs, no buts, when I know it does.

 

 

Looking at it from a objective viewpoint I would expect it to work correctly in all situations once it was released. That doesn't seem to be the case from the number of complaints about it. And given a major rewrite has been undertaken for the last 12 months it does suggest it wasn't coded very well in the first place. Yet it was released with a big price suggesting it was robust. Far from it I would suggest.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,919]

So it seems like we've concluded patc is out of the picture for now...that leaves PFe or voxatc

 

Why have you not included RC4? After all, that's what the original poster asked.

[wanabflyer 53]

Why have you not included RC4? After all, that's what the original poster asked.

+1