AI smooth does no good for me, airplanes flying upsidedown, into the ground, and disappearing...I would love to buy the new RC v4, if it controls AI aircraft and puts them in holds as well as my airplane if its busy. Plus if the ATC allows me to fly my filed approach, and also doesn't try running me into mountains when I go around or come into or out of an airport!If RC4 gets rid of the FS ATC altogether and creates a great realistic environemnt I will definately pick it up.

Alex,The latest v1.0 of AiSmooth is better but not perfect.RCv4 does slow down and speed up aircraft on final approach so that you shouldn't have one creep up you from behind or be prevented from landing by a slow coach in front. Combined with AiSmooth you have the best of both worlds.You can choose either radar vectors or your filed approach on arrival - the choice is yours when you contact Approach. Mountainous terrain is taken care of with MSA for each airport but there are exceptions when you really have to fly a instrument approach such as Innsbruck (LOWI). You still have NOTAM options for departure and arrival airports in mountainous areas.FS ATC? What's that then? ;-) Used it once and wasn't impressed.Cheers,

I find AISeperation works much better than AISmooth. I hardly have any go arounds, even at 100% Traffic. I've seen people complain that having planes shoot back 10 miles is too unrealistic for them, but I would counter that with saying that in all the flights I do, including a lot from/to LHR, that I only notice it once in a while. Of course, I don't have any Traffic Text either...as thats not very realistic is it :(

I used the 1.0 version but still found AI flying all over the place in all sorts of weird angles and got tired of it. Oh well, I will just wait for your add-on and hopefully ai smooth will be updated by that time. If you need any beta testers, I run so much traffic the game barely runs well on my FX-55

Neil,<>I found the exact opposite :-hmmm Each to their own eh?Cheers,

Alex,<>I think it just goes to show how incredibly difficult it is to control something that doesn't want to be controlled. There will always be a constant fight over control of Ai aircraft between FS and 3rd party software. If the SDK was available I think we would have a much better solution. Perhaps Microsoft will consider this for the next version.If you're interested in beta testing RCv4 please write to John Decker on the "Welcome" message on the RC Forum. You stand a much better chance if you volunteer to record either a pilot or controller voice set but there are no guarantees I'm afraid.Cheers,

AI smooth does no good for me, airplanes flying upsidedown, into the ground, and disappearing...Are you sure you have the latest verion of FSUIPC (I believe it should be 3.48 now) I had this problem, and realized I didn't update the FSUIPC module. Once I did, I no longer have this problem, and all my aircraft follows the instructed paterns. The only thing that would make it better is if it went through the normal ATC mechanism (or ones like RC). I find the other separation program (FS AI Separator) not realistic at all. It will literaly back up an approaching aircraft to separate it. If RC v4 can do better, they have my sale!

>I find AISeperation works much better than AISmooth. I hardly>have any go arounds, even at 100% Traffic. I've seen people>complain that having planes shoot back 10 miles is too>unrealistic for them, but I would counter that with saying>that in all the flights I do, including a lot from/to LHR,>that I only notice it once in a while. Of course, I don't have>any Traffic Text either...as thats not very realistic is it>:(I find the opposite too. AI smooth will send the aircraft in a pattern rather than back it up which is more realistic. As for the Traffic text you can turn that off.

To me, Radar Contact currently harks back to FS 98 and FS 2000 (when there was no in-built ATC). I do not think it has caught up yet, but perhaps the next version may do so.It does a few things better than FS 2004 ATC, but it does other things worse. I only see three extra features for practical purposes, and I can live without them all (because each can be pilot simulated in FS 2004 anyway). Plus it adds its own drawbacks.Anyway, I like the FS 2004 (Seattle?) accents and am happy to have one as my communications officer!Regards.Michael

I have the latest registered version of FSUIPC, but I will try this program again

Michael,This is a quote from the Radar Contact web page ... "Radar Contact Version 3 has over 60 ATC functions not available in FS2002 ATC."I'm not sure why you think it has only "a few things better than FS2004 ATC". Radar Contact has a proven track record as the ultimate 3rd party ATC program. Perhaps you have not used it recently.Version 4 will have many enhancements but if you're satisfied with the default ATC then that is your choice. Many others have a different opinion of the default ATC. Personally I find it pretty dreadful and I have no vested interest in RC other than as a tester.Cheers,

Next to RC, Vatsim is the best there is...LOL.TomCYYZ

Ray,Please remind yourself of the original question at the start of the thread.Turning to your points:>This is a quote from the Radar Contact web page ... "Radar>Contact Version 3 has over 60 ATC functions not available in>FS2002 ATC."Not the same in relation to FS 2004.>I'm not sure why you think it has only "a few things better>than FS2004 ATC". Radar Contact has a proven track record as>the ultimate 3rd party ATC program. I counted them. But no doubt the latter is true. The questioner canvassed opinions on the overall package (and not from just the "fans").>Perhaps you have not used it recently.True, in fact anyone who wants it can have my CD (version 3) for free - although there may be some issues with the code for activating it. The Radar Contact crowd seem a decent bunch, so perhaps they will provide another if asked nicely.>Version 4 will have many enhancementsNot difficult in some ways. My fear is the interface and continued use of FSUIPC and ADV TEXT, plus the quality of the voice recordings.>but if you're satisfied>with the default ATC then that is your choice. Better in many ways than the alternatives overall, so why not?>Many others have a different opinion of the default ATC.I've noticed - but since in the real world I fly in some of the most crowded airspace in that world, I form my own opinions thanks. > Personally find it pretty dreadful and I have no vested interest in RC other than as a tester.Did I disparage Radar Contact like that? And did I jump in to contradict your opinion? No, I just provided my own - as asked.Regards.Michael

Can't wait Bob!Noel

Michael,<>If you check my replies I never responded to the original question - only to subsequent ones where I felt I could contribute something.<>Please write to Radar Contact at the address in the docs regarding this.<>As a customer you are perfectly entitled to buy what you want.<>I never said you couldn't voice your own opinion. That's what these boards are all about.<>As a purchaser of FS2004 I'm perfectly entitled to voice an opinion on it. I don't expect everyone to agree with me but I defend my right and that of everyone else to express an opinion on any flight sim related matter.Cheers,