I tend to think, I am a very loyal and patient costumer....

 

But this "-Frequency changes sometimes not being recognised" is annoying me from day one, I paid a full price for a product...

 

Not happy about those longturn patch cycles for a dealbreaker bug.

 

McDan out

Wait for the next release, and you will see that these issues have been fixed. 

At least lol in PF3 one doesn't have to wait a year for fundamental corrections to be made. A call for runways that should be designated with "zero something" in ICAO to be corrected took less than ten days! 355 days less than PRoATC!!! lol

At least lol in PF3 one doesn't have to wait a year for fundamental corrections to be made. A call for runways that should be designated with "zero something" in ICAO to be corrected took less than ten days! 355 days less than PRoATC!!! lol

The big question is... I spent 49,95 € one year ago with Pro ATC X and now I will have to spend more £34.99... I think that I will need a Bank for keep my hobby work nicely.

As a new user to Pro ATC, I'm seeing lots of bugs and problems with it. However, I do realise that when these bugs are ironed out it has great potential from a development point of view.

 

Having said that, I have to agree with everyone else. Waiting 12 months for hotfixes is beyond ridiculous, especially after leaving 50 quid with the guy across the counter. I can understand that new features get added in yearly updates. And that's pretty good in itself. But having to wait a year for for small bug fixes is just wrong. Other developers for other addons release hotfixes up to as frequent as every month. I don't understand why that can't be the case here. And it's very telling that after several years now, these bugs STILL exist. I mean, if it has to be yearly, at least make sure you've covered all the bugs. I mean something as simple as Aer Lingus' call sign doesn't work. The text at the top rightfully says "shamrock" but yet the controller calls it "Aer Lingus". I'm getting background chatter from UK when I'm flying in Australia, I mean seriously? Yes, I know we can edit and add new chatter files, but surely this is something that should be in place out of the box?

 

Not that my opinion is in any way important, I'm just giving my 2 cents worth.

any chance please Mike you can change the easyjet callsign from "easyjet" to "easy" and british airways to "speedbird"

 

thanks 

 

Totally agree. These and other issues should be addressed by small patches on a regular basis. Personally, I have been waiting for "Alaska Airlines" to be added to the "Airline" menu in PATCs flight planner since nearly four(!) years.

Also developers nonattendance in the forums is not the best behavior.

any chance please Mike you can change the easyjet callsign from "easyjet" to "easy" and british airways to "speedbird"

 

thanks 

These are fixed in the version I am using.

 

 

Not happy about those longturn patch cycles for a dealbreaker bug.

 

And being one year forced to use "copilot tunes radios" and Copilot acknowledges" because of the timeout bug. Sigh.

 

Or you listen to ATIS "information XXXXX". And seconds later you get information "YYYYY" in the clearance dialog, so it does not correspond.

That's embarrassing for a "professional" ATC program.

 

Mike

And being one year forced to use "copilot tunes radios" and Copilot acknowledges" because of the timeout bug. Sigh.

 

Or you listen to ATIS "information XXXXX". And seconds later you get information "YYYYY" in the clearance dialog, so it does not correspond.

That's embarrassing for a "professional" ATC program.

 

Mike

 

After many decades of flying in real life in extremely busy ATC environments, all I can say is that for me  Pro ATC comes as close to real life ATC as I have found, and I have tried each and every ATC program  and demo ATC that is available, at length. Wish I had a nickel for every time I listened to ATIS in real life, and by the time I got ground control, the ATIS listened to  , had expired. 

Wish I had a nickel for every time I listened to ATIS in real life, and by the time I got ground control, the ATIS listened to , had expired.

 

So you listened to e.g. ATIS information Bravo, and from clearance seconds later it's information Romeo ? In real life I would have thought you had a good sleep in between .

It's not connected at all in PROATC/X. But it should. Doesn't take long during PPL until one learns such basics.

 

Mike

Bob,

 

If you have any contact with the developer, can you ask about the posibility of an open beta?

 

Afterall, it's not like the current public version is a stable bug-free version of the program. I can't see how the beta will be worse or more buggy than the current version, and a public beta will help speed up testing and maybe allow more than one patch per year (which I agree with others is pretty outrageous).

Bob,

 

If you have any contact with the developer, can you ask about the posibility of an open beta?

 

Afterall, it's not like the current public version is a stable bug-free version of the program. I can't see how the beta will be worse or more buggy than the current version, and a public beta will help speed up testing and maybe allow more than one patch per year (which I agree with others is pretty outrageous).

 

 

Ok, this is my last comment on this topic, because no matter what we  beta testers say, it seems that nobody is listening. The ATC program has to interact with different sims, different aircraft, different AI generators, different weather programs etc.  If you fix something in one environment, it may break something in someone else's rig. I personally fly  a least 15 flights per week, doing holds, STARS, SIDS, Rnav approaches, ILS, missed approaches, vectoring etc. and report each and every problem I experience  to PATC.  Usually by the next Beta, some of the problems are fixed, but another may crop up, and be reported by someone else. I can just imagine if beta's were released to the public, the crying and screaming that would go on, when someone had a problem, and posted on a a forum about what garbage the beta was because it didn't work on their setup. So like, LM, and PMDG, PATC has chosen the path of letting the beta testers sort out all the issues, until they are fixed, and then the fixes are retested. When that is done, it will be  released  in the yearly update. We have some very knowledgeable people on our beta team, and we all agree that this is the best way to go. Every problem I have reported on, in hundreds of hours of flying PATC, has been fixed in the forthcoming  new release, with one or two exceptions, which they are currently working on now. 

 

 

We have some very knowledgeable people on our beta team, and we all agree that this is the best way to go.

 

And we have a lot of paying customers here that would disagree.

Glad that all you Beta testers are having such a great time but the rest of us are unimpressed with the level of support. please pass that on to the developer, no on second thoughts, just send him a link to this thread.

And further to your statement that ProATC is the closest to real life ATC, sorry it's phraseology is not even close, really I don't see how as a real world pilot you can even state that.

And we have a lot of paying customers here that would disagree.

Glad that all you Beta testers are having such a great time but the rest of us are unimpressed with the level of support. please pass that on to the developer, no on second thoughts, just send him a link to this thread.

And further to your statement that ProATC is the closest to real life ATC, sorry it's phraseology is not even close, really I don't see how as a real world pilot you can even state that.

 

Maybe you are a more experienced pilot in real life than I am....Why don't you tell us what sim ATC program you think is more realistic, since you seem to be such an expert. 

Ok then Bob here goes,

VoxATC, ICAO compliant with the optional addon, compliant with CAP413, UK CAA radiotelephony manual.

PF3 fully ICAO compliant.

Then there is ProATC, phraseology is not even close to real world, callsigns are also wrong in many cases.

 

But then you knew this being a real world pilot and member of the worlds largest VA

I can just imagine if beta's were released to the public, the crying and screaming that would go on, when someone had a problem, and posted on a a forum about what garbage the beta was because it didn't work on their setup.

 

Wrong. Whenever you download a beta, you are aware that you will be running an unfinished product, with some features inevitably missing, not properly working or otherwise inaccurate, in some cases even with the risk of making your system or your sim unstable. That's why they call it beta. Using a beta implies accepting such risks. In fact, there is no obligation to run it. Frankly, as a paying user, I would love to be part of it. Not because of my knowledge (I am not a real pilot, so probably my contribution would be very little if not irrelevant), but because I think that this is my right as someone who paid $ 50,00.

Please understand that it is not nice when you search their forum, you find a thread that might contain the answer to your concern and you discover that you can't access it just because you're not part of the club. Frustrating at the very least.

 

 

So like, LM, and PMDG, PATC has chosen the path of letting the beta testers sort out all the issues, until they are fixed, and then the fixes are retested.

 

Sorry, you are wrong again. PMDG and LM sort out issues in a closed beta tester group before releasing their products, meaning before charging users, not after. If you accept my money, then you must also accept that I can be part of your betas, at my own discretion. There is no reason whatsoever to exclude me from such developments. If you like to work with small groups of testers, then remove your product from the market as Milviz did at some point with their KA 350i.

 

Please understand that we are not criticizing the product itself, whose potential is great. I do not regret my purchase despite the long list of bugs in the current public version. We simply find Pointsoftware's support approach very questionable, not to say kinda arrogant.