http://www.avsim.com/topic/482370-two-proatc-x-questions/?p=3363066

 

I like the idea. However, I would like to add the following. There should/could be a split between US and Europe/rest of the world.

 

The reason I'm saying this is that I went through the list and answering to myself:

 

- "Works in the US, but not in Europe, because the SID/STAR handling is completely opposite. (different SID/STAR based on weather, SID/STAR not include in the flight plan, ...)"

- "This might be common in US, but not in Europe"

- "Are terrain NOTAMs a real thing or sim related workaround?"

- "AIRAC cycles by Richard? Could this be AIRAC from Navigraph or Aerosoft?"

 

and so on.

 

So what I'm saying is that I like the idea behind the post, but final YES/NO answer to a questions is different based on where you fly.

One more detail to add : Correct ATIS handling, or better : ATIS/Clearance linked together.

 

PROATCX is an example how it should not be done : You listen to ATIS, e.g. information Delta. The immediately following clearance request is not linked to the 'Delta', it uses any random letter/designator. So instead of Delta you get a clearance request e.g. ....with information Yankee, and the clearance answer ...information Yankee is correct.

Embarrassing !

 

Mike

Correct ATIS handling, or better : ATIS/Clearance linked together

 

The question would be: "Does the ATC program generate it's own ATIS". If ATIS is generated externally, there is no way to link the ATIS information designator.

 

This reminds me with to other problem about forming YES/NO answers. Things that other people do not even pay attention to, are deal breakers for others.

The question would be: "Does the ATC program generate it's own ATIS". If ATIS is generated externally, there is no way to link the ATIS information designator.

Things that other people do not even pay attention to, are deal breakers to others.

 

Hm, you learn that ATIS stuff in a flight school within a few days. I think if the phraseology or ATIS handling is included like that, it should be correct, otherwise it makes no sense. I think it's a must to generate own ATIS then, e.g. like RC4.

 

As much as I appreciate a long feature list, I think the basics should not be ignored.

 

Mike

I used RC4 for a couple of years. I then tried Vox ATC, and really didn't like it . I then purchased Pro ATC X, and have been using it for over 6 months, around 4 hours per day average flying all over North America and Europe with a couple of VA's. I am still learning things about Pro ATC. My point is, the only way you can really evaluate one ATC program over the other is to spend a few dollars, purchase it, and try flying with it and decide if it gives you what you want. I see that almost every check box for RC4 is checked yes , and yet, I wouldn't go back to that program that hasn't been updated in years,  if you paid me to.  I can't imagine flying with a different ATC program that what I am currently using. YMMV.  

I think it's a must to generate own ATIS then, e.g. like RC4

 

As mentioned, "must" is very subjective. This is why I like the idea behind the original post. Here is an example list (based on my experience):

 

1) Generates it's own ATIS:

 

 - RC4: yes

 - VOX ATC: yes

 - ProATC: no

 

2) Assigns real world SIDs/STARs based on AIRAC (from Navigraph/Aerosoft):

 

 - RC4: no

 - VOX ATC: yes

 - ProATC: yes

 

3) Assigns real world transition levels automatically based on AIRAC (from Navigraph/Aerosoft):

 

 - RC4: no (can be manually entered)

 - VOX ATC: no

 - ProATC: yes

 

4) Uses FAA phraseology when flying in the US and uses ICAO phraseology when flying in Europe:

 

 - RC4: no (uses FAA globally)

 - VOX ATC: no

 - ProATC: no

 

I'm willing to say, that out of the 4 questions, we would be hard pressed to find consensus what is "must". It also shows that there isn't an ATC product that has all the corners covered. Hence the original question (at least I guess so).

4) Uses FAA phraseology when flying in the US and uses ICAO phraseology when flying in Europe:

 

 

 

- RC4: no (uses FAA globally)

 

- VOX ATC: no

 

- ProATC: no

 

Radar contact uses ICAO phraseology in Europe according to their website.

http://www.jdtllc.com/

 

 

 > Each center is classified as a FAA or ICAO center, resulting in different procedures and phraseology.

 

 

Radar contact uses ICAO phraseology in Europe according to their website.

 

Thank for pointing this out. For some reason, it felt like FAA to me. Will have to test a see what I have missed.

I used RC4 for a couple of years. I then tried Vox ATC, and really didn't like it . I then purchased Pro ATC X, and have been using it for over 6 months, around 4 hours per day average flying all over North America and Europe with a couple of VA's. I am still learning things about Pro ATC. My point is, the only way you can really evaluate one ATC program over the other is to spend a few dollars, purchase it, and try flying with it and decide if it gives you what you want. I see that almost every check box for RC4 is checked yes , and yet, I wouldn't go back to that program that hasn't been updated in years,  if you paid me to.  I can't imagine flying with a different ATC program that what I am currently using. YMMV.  

 

Bob can I do short flights lets say 20 miles with PROATC will atc get you there as you can not do this with RC4 and not a big fan of not having this capability - could you try a KBOS to KPVD flight to see if it works before I buy - just want to know if it will on a short a distance flight  and vector me in correctly to a runway at KPVD - try KBOS 22L to KPVD 05 - would appreciate it - thank you 

Bob can I do short flights lets say 20 miles with PROATC

 

 

To quote ProATC's forum:

 

 

PS: Just want to make everyone aware that ProATC/X support IFR flights and does not support VFR or flights into flight strips, beaches or mountains( :o) or anyones backyard : Definitely not on short IFR flights that would be quicker in a Taxi(Cab) :

 

Other products (even default ATC) are much better for those kind of flights as ProATC avoids vectoring as much as possible (safest way to keep you from flying into terrain).

Richard, ProATC is geared towards flying airliners utilising sids and stars.

Guys - I am trying to find out in which one I can do GA flights also with the heavies - like with C182 or Duke and GTN 750?

 

But the spreadsheet idea is an excellent one.  Thanks to you OP for talking about this subject.

 

 

1) Generates it's own ATIS:



- RC4: yes

- VOX ATC: yes

- ProATC: no

 

Actually PROATC-X sorta does, it just does it with text, through it's menu system not through the comms.

Thanks Guys for the info - appreciate it