FSX-MS PRO-ATC/X version 1.4 is out

[Dougal 165]

Hi there!

I updated to the most recent version, but everytime I try to access the settings menu, the following error message pops up:

 

Can't say I'm surprised. I bought it at release, and to date, I think i've had just TWO sucessfully completed flights.

 

I know its yet more money, and the initial setup can really be a pain, but as Tom said, PFE really does do a sterling job. Its BRILLIANT having the correct accents in the areas your flying in - SERIOUSLY!

[robert young 2,897]

Thanks for the above info/posts. I used to be a great fan of PF and PFE. I think I still have the right to install it again from simmarket. I agree that at the time PFE was leading all the other ATC addons, but I was hoping that recent strides in other software might be fruitful. Maybe I should revisit PFE then?

 

I recall installation and getting it to run was a bit fiddly but perhaps no more so than Pro Atc now. I do think the key is in really careful editing of voices. I'll give you a quick example of how the default FSX voices do so much better than many addons, and it's a shame FSX procedures are not good, because in other respects the voices are very well done.

 

Let's take a phrase like "line up and wait". Sounds simple, because it is a complete phrase and all you need to do is make sure the tone, timbre and character of the voice is consistent with other messages passed by the same controller.

 

Now consider this example: "Squawk 1551". Sounds equally simple, but it isn't. For a start, natural voices do not sound the last digit like the first. There is among nearly all languages a drop off in pitch of the last phrase, syllable or number. So it won't be ONE, FIVE, FIVE ONE. It will be "ONE FIVE FIVE one (the last "one" being of a lower pitch and stress). Then we have the problem if two "FIVE"s one after the other. Unless there is a subtle difference between two numbers or syllables that are the same, immediately the game is up!

 

In order to believe that you are talking to a real person, every single phrase and syllable has to be edited with infinite care. It is a very time consuming job but it is possible.

 

This might sound fussy and OCD except that it really is crucial. The default FSX voices do actually intelligently understand this, and I think to achieve it numbers and words are recorded separately to be "end of phrase" or midway in the phrase. So strings of numbers have to be recorded, all with completely consistent character but with a different emphasis according to where they are in the complete sentence.

 

I learned all this through doing quite a lot of sound work for various applications a few years ago. You cannot get away with recording just one number, or word, because they change in inflection according to where they are in the sentence.

 

The other thing that is crucial is the spacing between words and numbers. If you record "FIVE" with not enough space at the end, it could be triggered "FI FI FI Five" in a string. As soon as the listener hears this, one knows it is robotic. So it doesn't even matter whether they are live recordings or computer generated, they have to be edited extremely carefully.

 

FSX is actually remarkably good at doing this and to my mind is far superior to any ATC addon. I don't know how they achieved it because there are thousands of phrases. The procedures might be wrong and the accents solely American but they did a very good job of joining the phrases together. 

 

I recall PFE did this a bit better than some other ATC addons, but there were still major glitches. I concede it is a very difficult job, but you simply cannot just issue voice packs, and especially not well intentioned user voice packs, unless they have been thoroughly edited by a professional sound engineer with extremely critical ears.

 

I've also tried VOX Atc and I think it cannot be beaten in terms of procedural aspects, especially if you in the UK or Europe. But someone appears not to have bothered much with the sounds of the voices and how they are strung together. It is not the fact that they are not real voices. It is the implementation of the voices that is crucial.

[Dougal 165]

It sounds to me Rob, like you're talking yourslf into putting a package together;-))))

 

Personally, i think half the trouble with pro atc-x is that he's tried to build too much into it, instead of just producing a quality ATC addon. The developer is obviously a very talented guy, but he's also tried incorporate too much.

 

I would be plenty willing to pay big bucks (read pounds) for a QUALITY ATC only addon. Other apps can supply the bells and whistles, although i understand it needs to be linked to the flight planner in order  to 'know what its doing';-)

[robert young 2,897]

It sounds to me Rob, like you're talking yourslf into putting a package together;-))))

 

 

I think you're right Dougal! I'm too old though. If I was younger I might have a go. I know just how difficult and time consuming it is to make decent sound for ATC. I once did some sound for a driving sim. I think I recorded and edited 2,000 sounds then individually marked each wave for insertion points or triggers for other sounds. It was a thankless task (and badly paid) so I do have respect for anyone that can do a decent job of ATC voices. That's why user packs are generally not too good however well intentioned. The sheer work, quite apart from skill, can be overwhelming.

[tf51d 284]

I'll give you a quick example of how the default FSX voices do so much better than many addons, and it's a shame FSX procedures are not good, because in other respects the voices are very well done.

 

I agree, before I switched to PFE, I used default ATC edited with FSEditVoicePack (FSEVP). which improves it's phraseology. I even made my own Mods which I think improves it even further, like including Expected cruise alt in clearance, Winds for landing, "Lineup and wait" for FAA region, when they implemented it in the US, and a few other things. Default also gets a bad rap, because you can fly a departure procedure with the exception of altitude restrictions if you include the SID in your flightplan. In general though you can't fly a STAR, but in fact there is a way to do it, but the procedures must be defined in the Airports AFCAD. Unfortunately most do not. (Below is a sample of these mods.). Ive switched to PFE because besides the improved and larger voice selection, it is the most versatile ATC program available. It can handle VFR, IFR, emergency declarations, requests for both alt and heading deviations, request diversion to an Alternate (Although I not quite sure if this works right, or I'm doing something wrong, as it just sends me around to land at my primary destination.) It  also handles Oceanic Communications, including simulated SELCAL tones. One of the most unique features is how it handles ATC when you don't use any AI. Most ATC programs will handle this with canned ATC recordings, that don't have anything to do with your flight. PFE simulates a PFE session which uses the same controllers you are using, so communication seems more seamless.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdMQ-9PNiGw

[robert young 2,897]

I agree, before I switched to PFE, I used default ATC edited with FSEditVoicePack (FSEVP). which improves it's phraseology. I even made my own Mods which I think improves it even further, like including Expected cruise alt in clearance, Winds for landing, "Lineup and wait" for FAA region, when they implemented it in the US, and a few other things. Default also gets a bad rap, because you can fly a departure procedure with the exception of altitude restrictions if you include the SID in your flightplan. In general though you can't fly a STAR, but in fact there is a way to do it, but the procedures must be defined in the Airports AFCAD. Unfortunately most do not. (Below is a sample of these mods.). Ive switched to PFE because besides the improved and larger voice selection, it is the most versatile ATC program available. It can handle VFR, IFR, emergency declarations, requests for both alt and heading deviations, request diversion to an Alternate (Although I not quite sure if this works right, or I'm doing something wrong, as it just sends me around to land at my primary destination.) It  also handles Oceanic Communications, including simulated SELCAL tones. One of the most unique features is how it handles ATC when you don't use any AI. Most ATC programs will handle this with canned ATC recordings, that don't have anything to do with your flight. PFE simulates a PFE session which uses the same controllers you are using, so communication seems more seamless.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdMQ-9PNiGw

 

That's very interesting to hear. Maybe I should try PFE once again. Regarding SIDS and STARS, yes I've tried SIDS embedded in FSX flightplans and they do work. But because FSX ATC always vectors you miles downwind and starts the vector way too early, I can't find a way of making STARS work. What's the secret? You say it has to be in the AFCAD. Is it because FSX uses the current AFCAD by default to define the final vectors? If so what data is it taking to do so? The radius or boundaries of the local control area?

 

The only way I can do it is to close the flightplan near the TMA then do the STAR then choose "nearest airport/request full stop landing" in VFR mode.

[Jim Young 2,356]

I look at it this way....  It's impossible to make everyone happy campers with any complex program like ProATC (or the Turbine Duke or any aircraft).  Several will find the bugs, or they don't like the sound in the cabin of the aircraft and other issues. I would hate to be a developer in this FS environment.  Developers have to be pretty hard-headed to take some of the criticism that beta testers found to be perfectly okay.  You can come close to perfection but you will never ever see it as there are too many critics.  Make everything perfect in ProATC with everything desired by everyone above and you are still going to find others not satisfied.  It's missing a command during the approach phase or ProATC didn't give me the SID/STAR I wanted on a certain route (it game me the proper navdata for 100 other flights I had but it screwed up on this one flight).  You can only make a product so good and hope the majority of users like it and those who don't will eventually come around and accept the minor faults (or in some cases major faults).  Personally, I like it.  It gives me some sense of realism with a co-pilot helping me with the chores of getting the 'heavy' off the ground.  Like in real life, he does most of the communications and sets the altitude as demanded by ATC, the course, the comm frequencies, etc., etc. (and only if YOU, the Pilot in Command want him to handle those tasks).  If you want, you can still run the default FSX ATC in the background without even contacting them.  You can hear about other aircraft in your area, other pilots being told to watch out for you.  Stuff like that.  Sure, it would be great to have a perfect aircraft, a perfect ATC program, a perfect set of sceneries, a perfect FSX/FSX-SE/P3DV2, but we will never see that.  In some cases we are close (to perfection), but, in the end, we just have to live with what the developers gave us.  Like many other developers, the developer of ProATC-X continues to strive for 'perfection' with periodic updates (some longer than others) and that's a good thing.  He has a good team of beta testers (and us, the consumers) still providing advice.  I hope Mourad continues to improve on his product but right now let's enjoy what he has provided us already.

 

Respectfully,

[tf51d 284]

 

 

But because FSX ATC always vectors you miles downwind and starts the vector way too early, I can't find a way of making STARS work. What's the secret? You say it has to be in the AFCAD.

 

Check out Jim Viles AFCADs, he has set them up in some of his. Some default  airports also has procedures defined, but I don't think they are actual real world STARS. The way you do it, is when ATC gives you your initial approach instructions, in the menu you will see an option to select another approach if the AFCAD is so defined, select the one you want, and it will let you fly it. If it matches the procedures in your flightplan it will let you fly it with no vector instructions, else it will vector you on to it. I did this a while back on an approach to KEGE, and it followed it pretty good, even with the altitude restrictions (Defined in AFCAD)

[robert young 2,897]

I look at it this way....  It's impossible to make everyone happy campers with any complex program like ProATC (or the Turbine Duke or any aircraft).  Several will find the bugs, or they don't like the sound in the cabin of the aircraft and other issues. I would hate to be a developer in this FS environment.  Developers have to be pretty hard-headed to take some of the criticism that beta testers found to be perfectly okay.  You can come close to perfection but you will never ever see it as there are too many critics.  Make everything perfect in ProATC with everything desired by everyone above and you are still going to find others not satisfied.  It's missing a command during the approach phase or ProATC didn't give me the SID/STAR I wanted on a certain route (it game me the proper navdata for 100 other flights I had but it screwed up on this one flight).  You can only make a product so good and hope the majority of users like it and those who don't will eventually come around and accept the minor faults (or in some cases major faults).  Personally, I like it.  It gives me some sense of realism with a co-pilot helping me with the chores of getting the 'heavy' off the ground.  Like in real life, he does most of the communications and sets the altitude as demanded by ATC, the course, the comm frequencies, etc., etc. (and only if YOU, the Pilot in Command want him to handle those tasks).  If you want, you can still run the default FSX ATC in the background without even contacting them.  You can hear about other aircraft in your area, other pilots being told to watch out for you.  Stuff like that.  Sure, it would be great to have a perfect aircraft, a perfect ATC program, a perfect set of sceneries, a perfect FSX/FSX-SE/P3DV2, but we will never see that.  In some cases we are close (to perfection), but, in the end, we just have to live with what the developers gave us.  Like many other developers, the developer of ProATC-X continues to strive for 'perfection' with periodic updates (some longer than others) and that's a good thing.  He has a good team of beta testers (and us, the consumers) still providing advice.  I hope Mourad continues to improve on his product but right now let's enjoy what he has provided us already.

 

Respectfully,

 

 

I agree Jim, that there are some good things happening in Pro Atc, and yes it is hard to please everyone. The most important man on the team for me though, would be the chap who edits the voices.

[patrico 5]

well said Jim I am slowly leaning the ropes  on PRO ATC like you said there is no pleasing everyone

[Dougal 165]

That's alright though 'cos Mourad only has to please MEEEEEEE of course;-). No, seriously, I agree 100%

[Darcy 63]

I agree with Jim.  This is great product, yes a few flaws, but I would not fly without it and it has made my flight simming more enjoyable.  I previously used Radar Contact for years and for me this has upped the game.

 

Thanks,

Darcy

[Jim Young 2,356]

That's alright though 'cos Mourad only has to please MEEEEEEE of course;-). No, seriously, I agree 100%

That's absolutely hilarious Phil!  That hits the nail on the head though and confirms my thesis in that AVSIM has thousands of users who are saying the same thing.  Me!  No me!   

 

Best regards,

[Dougal 165]

I agree with Jim.  This is great product, yes a few flaws, but I would not fly without it and it has made my flight simming more enjoyable.  I previously used Radar Contact for years and for me this has upped the game.

 

Thanks,

Darcy

I would LOVE to be able to say the same, and had very high hopes after v1.4  Hasn't happened for me AT ALL.  Were it not for a high number of others with the same issues, then I'd assume it was me or my system.  I've even gone so far as to go to completely new Windows and FSX installs on both main server and client PCs, but I always get a problem big enough to end the flight:(

 

For now I have had to reinstall my PFE.  I don't doubt for a moment, that Pro ATCX has huge potential.  I just think it works for some and not for others. Is the general consensus that its gone as far as its going, or is Mourad still taking it forward, rather than just 'tweaking' it?

[gtrbarbarian 1]

Does anyone else have the problem of taxiing to the correct runway, contacting tower, only to be told you'll be called back....and then having a bunch of AI run through your plane, line up, get clearance from pro atc/x and then take off? I had to turn 'collision' off, because planes just bulldoze me over....