hey jarkko maybe you could try a flight for me if you have some spare time. ... my one bad flight was flying the GPS 18 approach into KTVL ... my flightplan ended on HUYJO (iaf) waypoint ... it cleared me for an "ils 18" approach which does not exist ... (is this something that can be disabled? i am expecting vectors, not a new set of points to fly with the GPS..

 

anyway thanks 

 

cheers

-andy crosby

 

Hello Andy,

 

Can you please post the same info to the ProATC support forum with a log attached. The reason I'm asking you to do so, is that you should have done things correctly.

 

What should have happened with your flight plan, is that you would have been given GPS18 with HYOJO transition (no vectors needed).

 

Like you mentioned, no ILS approach available so something about the installation isn't right. This is why we need to have a look at the log. (sounds like AIRAC import or scenery import didn't work as expected as ProATC falls back to ILS if required data is missing IIRC)

 

Thanks for the report!

Edited October 9, 201510 yr by Jarkko

First few flights with 1.7.02 have been very good. It is obvious the amount of work that has gone into this product.

 

Kudos to the entire team. This is the one that sets the bar high and will get even better as time goes by.

 

My 2 cents - don't pass this one by.

Andy,

 

While KTVL doesn't have an ILS, it does have LDA approaches to 18.  ProATC probably sees the localizer frequency and interprets it as an ILS... and I believe the program gives preference to those types of approaches by default.

 

As the for the vectoring, it initially confused me a little bit too.  When the application determines that vectors are required, it basically adds "internal" waypoints for its own reference to try to give you a decent intercept to final (which is still not perfect since I've seen a lot of 45 degree intercepts rather than the standard 30 degrees... but I digress).  Anyway, the confusion arises when it provides names of un-filed, obscure waypoints (often calling them VORs which is a known issue) and it tells you to proceed direct... it then gives you a heading to fly.  When this happens, ignore the "proceed direct" instructions and just fly the vector, when you get to the internal waypoint, it will provide another vector, and so on until you're set up to join the final.  Hopefully, future builds will replace those confusing waypoint instructions with simple "vectors to final" phraseology.

 

M.D.

my one bad flight was flying the GPS 18 approach into KTVL ...it resulted in strange problems and instructions. my flightplan ended on HUYJO (iaf) waypoint, and i expected i would just get cleared for the approach as i neared it. but rather than give me the approach clearance it cleared me for an "ils 18" approach which does not exist, and then added a ton of strange waypoints to my flightplan.

 

Quick question: Did you use Orbx KTVL? I'm asking because Orbx did indeed add an ILS 18 approach to their KTVL scenery even though it does not exist in reality (most likely so that all those autoland guys who don't know how to manually fly an airliner can land there). This might be the reason Pro/ATC gives you an ILS approach into KTVL. Just my 2 cents...

 

 

That why we have a 'known issues' post, makes life easier for everyone, so we thought.

 

Anyway, any issues then please come across to the ProATC forum, where we will offer product support and anyone can ask questions and they will get answered. Good team across there with lots of product knowledge who are willing to help

 

hahaha, yes, i'm sorry i didn't mean to derail this thread by turning it into a support issue. i was figuring i would try the approach again to see if i did something dumb before i started posting about it over at the ProATC forum and i got sidetracked by jarrko's helpful ways

 

 

Like you mentioned, no ILS approach available so something about the installation isn't right. This is why we need to have a look at the log. (sounds like AIRAC import or scenery import didn't work as expected as ProATC falls back to ILS if required data is missing IIRC)

 

 

yeah it looks like it is maybe related to something specific with the setup from the orbx KTVL. i flew the rnav into KSQL without any troubles at all, in particular the altitude clearances were spot on which is really important there as it sort of descends into the valley.  anyway i am going to try the LDA approach and see what happens with that. maybe there is a way to force it to ignore those approaches when doing the GPS, i had unchecked "prefer ils/gls/loc approaches" in the flightplan but maybe that doesn't quite do what i think it does.

 

 

 

As the for the vectoring, it initially confused me a little bit too.  When the application determines that vectors are required, it basically adds "internal" waypoints for its own reference to try to give you a decent intercept to final (which is still not perfect since I've seen a lot of 45 degree intercepts rather than the standard 30 degrees... but I digress).  Anyway, the confusion arises when it provides names of un-filed, obscure waypoints (often calling them VORs which is a known issue) and it tells you to proceed direct... it then gives you a heading to fly.  When this happens, ignore the "proceed direct" instructions and just fly the vector,

 

thanks yeah that sounds like what i was seeing. i found that by unchecking the 'generate fsx/p3d plan' option it wouldn't add extra waypoints during flight which was helpful to turn off for me as they were confusing and showing conflicting stuff with the selected approach in the G1000, and yeah sounds like the calling it a vor was part of what was throwing me off there..chalk this one up to being unfamilar with the quirks on my part.

 

Quick question: Did you use Orbx KTVL? I'm asking because Orbx did indeed add an ILS 18 approach to their KTVL scenery even though it does not exist in reality (most likely so that all those autoland guys who don't know how to manually fly an airliner can land there). This might be the reason Pro/ATC gives you an ILS approach into KTVL. Just my 2 cents...

 

yes! i'm certain that this is part of the issue as i was able to fly some RNAVS elsewhere that worked flawlessly. in ADE it looks like the localizer for the LDA approach has a runway heading instead of the offset that is in the charts, so maybe i can adjust it there and the LDA will be fully correct, i only see the one localizer in that afcad so maybe they compromised by setting it up that way or perhaps it is added in another BGL or something, i will need to experiment more. i think this may end up being weird at KEGE also...i looked at that one to see how the LDA localizer was setup there, to compare with KTVL, and it looks like it has the localizer that is listed on the charts and then another magic one that is perfectly aligned with the runway, haha!

 

First few flights with 1.7.02 have been very good. It is obvious the amount of work that has gone into this product.

 

Kudos to the entire team. This is the one that sets the bar high and will get even better as time goes by.

 

 

absolutely! the more i am messing with PRO-ATC the more i like it, the interface is really slick and i'm really pleased with how it handles the waypoint altitudes and clearances. this alone makes pro-atc worth it to me so far, as it might be the first ATC i've used that didn't want to clear me to descend into the mountainside at KSQL, i'm excited to try out some other tricky RNAV ones and see how they go. it also perfectly handled the PIGO1J STAR at EGNX and i'm looking forward to setting it up to fly the holds there and at some of the other euro airports where holds seem to be part of the STARS very commonly. i also really liked how easy it is to customize the runways in-use, etc. i'm also glad to see that the voices and callsigns are slated for improvements, from my limited peeking around the folders with the wav data it looks like mainly this is already all supported in the code anyway and is just a matter of having the recordings. good stuff!!

 

thanks for all the responses y'all

 

cheers

-andy crosby

 

 

 

 

How can it be that it is impossible to register at their forum, i have done all right but they found somthing all the time to keep people out why?

 

name right

email right

password right

quistions right

 

no accces

 

hmm strange!!!

How can it be that it is impossible to register at their forum, i have done all right but they found somthing all the time to keep people out why?

 

A great number of users so far have done the "impossible" Please check your spam folder.

spam folder ?

spam folder ?

 

 Please check your email. The activation message might have ended up in your email's spam folder.

sorry byt it has not. it says wrong email all the time so i know that i did not get a mail from you

i know my ovn email adress where i bought the program. I havent registed because it fails all the time.

it says wrong email all the time so i know that i did not get a mail from you

i know my ovn email adress where i bought the program. I havent registed because it fails all the time.

 

Please send me a PM (private message) here on avsim with the details you tried to enter.

How can it be that it is impossible to register at their forum, i have done all right but they found somthing all the time to keep people out why?

 

name right

email right

password right

quistions right

 

no accces

 

hmm strange!!!

 

 

Registered the other day after purchasing ProAtc/X got the email straight away to confirm.

No issues with the registration,

I've flown this version now for a couple of flights, and so far I am impressed. The flights I have done so far went well, and AI interaction is very good. Even better then PFE, which up til now I have considered the best for AI interaction. It interacts with AI gate to gate and it doesn't vector AI at altitude like PFE (Or default AI) They fly their Flightplans as they should. The one thing is it appears to have the same problem PFE has with freq Xfers. It handles Controller to Pilot XFER and Pilot to Next Controller contact instructions correctly for the user aircraft, but only the latter for AI aircraft. Same as PFE. I haven't seen any traffic alerts so far, but for the flights I had I didn't have any actual incursions on TCAS. Which makes me question. There is definitely some form of AI control on the ground as AI now waits for me to pass rather than get in my way. I wonder though if AI is being controlled in the air now or just interacted with ike the other ATC solutions do. AI seem to keep a wider separation with my aircraft then before, but it's only been a couple of flights, so I can't say for sure. I use WOAI for my AI.

I have run into a similar problem with this forum register and all the hoops that they want you jump through just to prove you are really a customer. It is really a shame that they can get away with treating a paid customer in this manner.   Skip

I have run into a similar problem with this forum register and all the hoops that they want you jump through just to prove you are really a customer. It is really a shame that they can get away with treating a paid customer in this manner.   Skip

 

It all depends. It took me about 20 seconds to register to the forums. No hoops found along the way. You enter you purchase details and that's it, you are in.

 

Send me a PM if you still have problems.