FSX-MS most liked ATC software

[Jarkko 59]

You had two options. 1) Request Direct To once 30 miles out or 2) include the SID waypoints in your plan.

 

Well that doesn't work in Europe now does it? In the US, you have SIDs/STARs connecting to multiple runways, even once facing in opposite directions.

 

In Europe, the SIDs are runway direction specific (even runway specific). If I were to include the SID waypoints in the plan and the winds changed in between, I would first have to take off, then circle the whole airport, justo to get to the SID I planned, but should not fly due to changed wind conditions.

 

 

Radar Contact doesn't have 'robotic voices'. They are recording of real people's voices.

 

Go back and check, I wasn't talking about RC, I was talking about VoxATC's free voices. The paid voice packages are great (for VoxATC), but expensive.

 

 

And you will only be flown into a mountain if you use the program incorrectly. Not sure how many times I need to say that!

 

Following ATC's advice is using the program incorrectly? If you enable all the workarounds, you end up with an apologetic ATC: "... if able ...". For me, the ATC should know the airport surroundings better than me.

 

 

Does ProATC-X not monitor your flying?

 

It does monitor your course/track. If you get off your planned route, it will vector you back on course. Altitude monitoring is similar to RC's taxi monitoring. Almost anything goes (unless you get too close to other traffic).

[wanabflyer 53]

 

 

 

 

Go back and check, I wasn't talking about RC, I was talking about VoxATC's free voices. The paid voice packages are great (for VoxATC), but expensive.

This is an unfair and inaccurate statement Jarkko. For one thing, there are speed of speach and sound effect adjustments provided to set up those free VOXPOP voices which if you take the time can give you supprisingly good results and really great payware voices using the correct speed adjustment. Even the free ones are better than the awful voice packages that come with PATC.

 

Every time PATC releases a new version, I give it a go and still this horse doesn't like that course.

[Jarkko 59]

This is an unfair and inaccurate statement Jarkko. For one thing, there are speed of speach and sound effect adjustments provided to set up those free VOXPOP voices which if you take the time can give you supprisingly good results and really great payware voices using the correct speed adjustment. Even the free ones are better than the awful voice packages that come with PATC.

 

So it is unfair for me to say, that I don't like the VoxPop voices, but it is totally OK, for you to say, that you do not like the ProATC voices?   :blink:

 

(and I already mentioned, that I like the payware options for VoxATC, but they have cost me 150eur so far. For 3 voices, I will call it expensive)

[wanabflyer 53]

My post is not implying that it is unfair for you to knock Voxpop voices. It is that your reference to robotic voices (in your previous post) is not accurate. As for PATC voices, are you telling me they are acceptable?

[Jarkko 59]

My post is not implying that it is unfair for you to knock Voxpop voices. It is that your reference to robotic voices (in your previous post) is not accurate. As for PATC voices, are you telling me they are acceptable?

 

Here are VoxATC voices as heard on my system (old live stream): http://youtu.be/wpVgVaqi5a8?t=37m21s   For me, the ATC does sound robotic (mix of default and VoxPOP). This is why I opted to by the add-on voices. And yes, my flying and the video content is terrible.

 

And I'm also telling you that the ProATC voices are acceptable for me. If they are unacceptable for you, then that's OK.

 

With ProATC, I mostly hear the background ATC just like on my (older) video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWm69qu6azs or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7loUQngkOl8

 

The robotic voices do not sound that bad (for me) if there is real word ATC in between (for others, this might be/is an immersion breaker).

[jkeye 152]

Hi

Interesting discussion

Does ProATC or VOxATC or RC respect minimum safe altitudes in Prepar3d?

Cheers

Jay

[Ray Proudfoot 8,942]

 

Well that doesn't work in Europe now does it? In the US, you have SIDs/STARs connecting to multiple runways, even once facing in opposite directions.

90% of my flying is in Europe and it works for me. For the US you have to adapt your flight plan accordingly. RC4 was tested extensively by several experienced people including 2 r/w AT controllers so I'm confident the program works as intended providing you give it the right info and configure it correctly.

 

In Europe, the SIDs are runway direction specific (even runway specific). If I were to include the SID waypoints in the plan and the winds changed in between, I would first have to take off, then circle the whole airport, justo to get to the SID I planned, but should not fly due to changed wind conditions.

Depends how long you leave it between planning and flying. But you can still get around wrong waypoints during departure. Just request Direct To when able. You may have to put up with a bit of nagging but the best way is not to include SID waypoints - just the exit one as your first waypoint.

 

Go back and check, I wasn't talking about RC, I was talking about VoxATC's free voices. The paid voice packages are great (for VoxATC), but expensive... Following ATC's advice is using the program incorrectly? If you enable all the workarounds, you end up with an apologetic ATC: "... if able ...". For me, the ATC should know the airport surroundings better than me.

You didn't make it clear. Explanation accepted. I've already said that if your destination airport is in a mountainous area you should select NOTAMS. That's the ONE workaround. And are you seriously expecting a program to know the location of every mountain near an airport in the world? :rolleyes:

 

It does monitor your course/track. If you get off your planned route, it will vector you back on course. Altitude monitoring is similar to RC's taxi monitoring. Almost anything goes (unless you get too close to other traffic).

Okay, so that roundabout answer was that it doesn't monitor your altitude once airborne. It is an AIR traffic program after all. Not a ground one.

 

I think we can both agree that all ATC programs have their strengths and weaknesses. You pay your money and take your choice.

 

I've said all I intend to on this. I'll leave others to decide which program they prefer.

 

[Jarkko 59]

And are you seriously expecting a program to know the location of every mountain near an airport in the world? :rolleyes:

 

That is what ProATC is doing, but you need to have an active internet connection for it to work. ProATC downloads the elevation for the airports in your flight plan. I won't say it works flawlessly on every airport (because it is a spot measurement and on of the spots could be in a valley), but I have managed to fly to LOWI (for example) without being given altitudes that would have me descend dangerously low (possible below charted minimum safe altitudes, but still clear of terrain).

 

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not promoting ProATC. It has it's problems and is only suitable for bigger aircrafts and bigger airports. Want to fly to small airports an/or  VFR, not going to happen. 

 

 

Okay, so that roundabout answer was that it doesn't monitor your altitude once airborne.

 

 

That is correct.

 

 

I think we can both agree that all ATC programs have their strengths and weaknesses. You pay your money and take your choice.

 

Agree 100%

 

As we have seen on this thread (and on countless Airbus vs Boeing threads), there isn't a one size fits all option.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Jarkko

[Ray Proudfoot 8,942]

 

 

That is what ProATC is doing, but you need to have an active internet connection for it to work. ProATC downloads the elevation for the airports in your flight plan. I won't say it works flawlessly on every airport (because it is a spot measurement and on of the spots could be in a valley), but I have managed to fly to LOWI (for example) without being given altitudes that would have me descend dangerously low (possible below charted minimum safe altitudes, but still clear of terrain).

 

That sounds interesting. I'm visiting a friend this weekend who has ProATC-X so we might give that a try. Tenerife South is always a good test with Mt Teide (12,000ft) to the west of the airport.

[Pete Dowson 558]

Does ProATC-X still refer to "British Airways" rather than "Speedbird"?

 

The voice recordings for ProATC/X appear to be of low priority compared to the actual procedural part. I can understand that. And there are only a couple of voices still, because there's no point in adding a lot till all the correct phrases and words are fully established and matched to the procedures.

 

As you know for RC experience it takes a lot of contributors doing a lot of work to attend to that side of things. Hopefully it will happen for ProATC/X one day, because the extra realism of taxi instructions and SID and STAR assignment is a real nice plus over RC4. Maybe then I'll change over, though I'd need to beg some extra options (command-line parameters for startup) so that I can continue to file plans from CDU entries as I do with RC.

 

On this point:

 

And are you seriously expecting a program to know the location of every mountain near an airport in the world?  :rolleyes:

 

 

Well, for me, the answer is yes -- that's surely one of the things that SIDs and STARs, along with their altitude restrictions are for. They have two purposes, in fact, one to make it easier for ATC to mantain traffic flows in the regions around airports, and the other to maintain those flows safely given the physical environment. Oh, a third (lesser one perhaps), to abide by any noise abatement restrictions imposed by the local powers.

 

That sounds interesting. I'm visiting a friend this weekend who has ProATC-X so we might give that a try. 

 

 

Ah, I'll need to make sure my ProATC/X installation is up to date and working, then. Not tried it for a long long time! ;-)

 

Pete

[Ray Proudfoot 8,942]

 

 

The voice recordings for ProATC/X appear to be of low priority compared to the actual procedural part. I can understand that. And there are only a couple of voices still, because there's no point in adding a lot till all the correct phrases and words are fully established and matched to the procedures.

Is there a plan to formalise the instructions to adhere to ICAO / FAA standards?

 

the answer is yes -- that's one of the things that SIDs and STARs, along with their altitude restrictions are for.

If you want to test this aspect with Pro-ATC-X we could try a flight from La Palma to GCTS if you like. The proximity of Mt Teide should be a good test if approaching from the west. La Palma airport release is imminent.

[Pete Dowson 558]

Is there a plan to formalise the instructions to adhere to ICAO / FAA standards?

 

No idea, sorry, i'm not part of the team, just a hopeful potential user if and when ... ;-)

 

Pete

[Glynn 405]

 

 

Hopefully it will happen for ProATC/X one day, because the extra realism of taxi instructions and SID and STAR assignment is a real nice plus over RC4. Maybe then I'll change over, though I'd need to beg some extra options

 

Peter, all I would need to at least give ProATC a decent go would be if I could run it on my client machine and view its output there using something like Showtext, just as I do with RC4.

Having the ProATC output on the FSX screen is what is stopping me from using it.

 

Do you think this will ever be a possibility ?

[riccardo74 36]

Very interesting discussion, it take a lot of time from last ProATC/X update or am I wrong?

 

Does it interact with AI ground and airborne?

 

What I couldn't understand is if track your FL or not, not clear at all. I know RC monitor your FL, but ProATC?

[Pete Dowson 558]

Peter, all I would need to at least give ProATC a decent go would be if I could run it on my client machine and view its output there using something like Showtext, just as I do with RC4.

Having the ProATC output on the FSX screen is what is stopping me from using it.

 

Do you think this will ever be a possibility ?

 

I have a system using FSUIPC and WideClient with a Lua plug-in which successfully places the GSX menu (for instance) on a client screen. I think this should work fine for ProATC/X too as it probably uses the SimConnect menu system i'm hooking.

 

But with FSX & FSX-SE I can't completely remove the window from the FS screen (in full screen mode) -- so I make it as small as it will go (which isn't really small enough), and move it to top left corner, out of my direct line of vision. In P3D I can remove it altogether by moving it off the screen area, but that's because P3D's "full screen mode" is actually a borderless window.

 

The details of how to do this are availalble in the FSUIPC/WideFs documents somewhere, I think, but if you want to try, send me an email (petedowson@btconnect.com). But don't expect a reply till monday or so. A bit tied up beforehand.

 

Having ProATC/X do this more professionally is on the list of requests I will make to ProATC/X's author, along with my command line wants, when the product has progressed to the point i decide to use it -- i.e. mainly when more and correct voices are sorted out.

 

Pete