I'm a little hesitant to continue to respond on page 20 of a thread... but here goes....

 

After spending some more time with PF3, I'm beginning to change my tune. PF3 has a lot more to offer than PFE... and it goes way beyond just getting rid of the old adventure generator. It is definitely more polished... still a few bugs here and there; but much more reliable. Other changes are subtle but pretty powerful. The STAR setup is not as much of a burden as it used to be. I still wish it had access to airac so it could assign procedures itself; but the method it uses is more flexible than I originally I thought. Bottom line, you really don't have to enter every SID/STAR waypoint in the flightplan to fly a terminal procedure... I'm thinking just the first and last fixes will suffice in most cases. I'll have more to say about it later.

 

To correct a few errors I've read:

 

The purpose of Air Traffic Control is to ensure the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of traffic in the airspace system. To facilitate that purpose, controllers are well within their rights to butcher your carefully thought-out flightplan beyond all recognition... but they will usually only make minor amendments. Anyone who thinks a flightplan is a directive to inform a controller exactly how to handle your flight is in for a very rude awakening if they ever fly in the real world.

 

Towers issue vectors all the time. Sorry Ray...they do.

 

Departure will rip you off a SID faster than the Concorde if there's conflicting traffic. Enroute controllers will also take you off the SID if it saves flying time and there's no conflicting traffic. I often request direct to a waypoint to cut the corners (and most flightsim ATC programs provide that functionality).

 

Vectoring off a STAR is the rule... not the exception! Most European STARS don't explicitly spell out where vectors occur in the procedure... but your chances of getting one are pretty high if there's any traffic whatsoever.

 

Don't think of the FAF in PF3 as the actual FAF for your instrument approach. From what I can gather, the FAF serves 2 purposes in PF3: 1) It determines the final altitude you'll get before being cleared for the approach and 2) It determines how far out ATC will vector you to join the final. The fact that it's different than the actual FAF for the instrument approach has no impact whatsoever on the experience.

 

It's still early days yet... but I'm really starting to like what I see with PF3. I'm off to try another flight.

I'm a little hesitant to continue to respond on page 20 of a thread... but here goes....

 

After spending some more time with PF3, I'm beginning to change my tune.  PF3 has a lot more to offer than PFE... and it goes way beyond just getting rid of the old adventure generator.  It is definitely more polished... still a few bugs here and there; but much more reliable.  Other changes are subtle but pretty powerful.  The STAR setup is not as much of a burden as it used to be.  I still wish it had access to airac so it could assign procedures itself; but the method it uses is more flexible than I originally I thought.  Bottom line, you really don't have to enter every SID/STAR waypoint in the flightplan to fly a terminal procedure... I'm thinking just the first and last fixes will suffice in most cases.  I'll have more to say about it later.

 

To correct a few errors I've read:

 

The purpose of Air Traffic Control is to ensure the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of traffic in the airspace system.  To facilitate that purpose, controllers are well within their rights to butcher your carefully thought-out flightplan beyond all recognition... but they will usually only make minor amendments.  Anyone who thinks a flightplan is a directive to inform a controller exactly how to handle your flight is in for a very rude awakening if they ever fly in the real world.

 

Towers issue vectors all the time.  Sorry Ray...they do.

 

Departure will rip you off a SID faster than the Concorde if there's conflicting traffic.  Enroute controllers will also take you off the SID if it saves flying time and there's no conflicting traffic.  I often request direct to a waypoint to cut the corners (and most flightsim ATC programs provide that functionality).

 

Vectoring off a STAR is the rule... not the exception!

 

Don't think of the FAF in PF3 as the actual FAF for your instrument approach.  From what I can gather, the FAF serves 2 purposes in PF3: 1) It determines the final altitude you'll get before being cleared for the approach and 2) It determines how far out ATC will vector you to join the final.  The fact that it's different than the actual FAF for the instrument approach has no impact whatsoever on the experience.

 

It's still early days yet... but I'm really starting to like what I see with PF3.  I'm off to try another flight.

 

So the FAF in PF3  is a "make believe" FAF.. OK, I get it now... 

No Bob... I don't think you do.

So the FAF in PF3  is a "make believe" FAF.. OK, I get it now... 

 

 

No,  I think the terminology used is throwing people off here.  When being VECTORED to the final approach course (in the USA mainly)  you can let PF3 know the distance from the FAF you would like to be cleared to intercept the final approach course.  You can also specify the FAF altitude you would like to be at when given clearance to intercept the final approach course.  Due to the fact that PF3 does not use AIRAC data it has no way of knowing the altitude to be at on the final approach (it can make an educated guess if you do not put an altitude in though).  

 

RC4 always vectored you at least 10-15 miles from the runway threshold then gave you clearance to intercept final app course.   At approximately 5 miles; which to RC4 would be the outter marker you would be told to contact tower.   RC4 also did not use AIRAC data so it had a box also for entering and MSA altitude to maneuver you onto the final approach course.

 

PROATCX has the data and I have the program but only used it a couple times (did not like the Phraseology of ATC)  and understand they cannot vector you but use waypoints as vectoring tools.  How they do the FAF etc I will not say as I'd probably be incorrect. 

 

There is no "make believe" FAF.  Its on the charts or in your GPS and PF3 (and RC4) are just putting you on an intercept heading to the ILS which leads to the FAF.   Granted in real life or online ATC such as Pilotedge the controller would state "x miles from ABC fly heading XXX maintain XXXX cleared ILS XXL"   Of course PF3 and RC4 cannot do this as they have no AIRAC data so its simulated the best they can do with what they have to work with.  This is where inputting the info before the flight:  Distance and Altitude come into play.

 

I will look at my charts for the arrival airport and most runways all will have the same FAF altitude so I just round up to a safe altitude.  Distance I keep short to about 7-10 miles.  

 

 

For example ILS/LOC DME runway 02R into KBNA. SKAGS would be the FAF (outter marker) which states at or above 2500.  So in PFE I would put FAF altitude at 2000-2500  SKAGS is 7.3 dme from the rwy so I'd put 10 into FAF distance that way I'd be on the FAC before SKAGS and at 2000-2500 feet.  I also make sure my speed in PF3 is set to 170 so they instruct me to maintain 170 onto the FAC.

 

 

Here is a link to a great article though from 98 on vectoring to FAF:

 

http://www.terps.com/ifrr/feb98.pdf

In the classic answer on avsim

 

Works fine for me.

 

Let me know your flight plan and I can try it later.

After reading the last two pages I notice that there is one thing people expect from ATC: to be surprised. Even some of the guys who like (or are beginning to like) PF3 say that in real life you will usually get vectored out of a SID or STAR and you never know when that will happen. In either case you expect ATC to be in control and to do things you don't expect. The problem here as far as I can tell is that PF3 only offers two options for procedures: you either tell it to not bother you during a procedure, in which case it will indeed not bother you even when it's really needed (!), or it will follow every step you do until the very end. That is just too limited. First of all it is not realistic that you can tell ATC not to bother you during a procedure, secondly it is not realistic that ATC won't say anything if you miss a waypoint and I suppose (but am not sure) ATC also won't bother you when traffic is near and things are getting dangerous. And if I tell ATC to please bother me during a procedure I want it to make changes to my flight depending on the amount of traffic and not just simply guide me along the entire path. In real life, so I understand, procedures seldom are flown the exact same. It all depends on the current situation. With PF3 you know what is going to happen long before you even started the sim.

 

And this is only one of the things that aren't as they should be. As I said before: to me PF3 is some sort of canned scenario reader because you have to tell it too much. I want ATC to be in control where it should be and not the other way around. I want to be surprised. (Though not as much as default ATC surprises me during IFR flights LOL hahaha!)

After reading through most of the thread I come to the conclusion that I won't even try the demo (I'm currently away from home so I can't anyway) because this program requires way too much fiddling around. Kind of funny how much workarounds are being posted here for a supposedly finished product. And how is using the default navdata an advantage? This is horrible. If you fly tubeliners then using updated navdata is a must. In the end, for me time is the most scarce resource. Using an ATC program which requires yet another half hour of preflight procedures is not an option. I'm a happy Pro-ATC user. For me, it works nicely (with some smaller problems) and it is set up really quickly. But happy fiddling to those who continue to use PF3.

Thoughts after trying the demo.

No better then the default FS9, except far more involved with FS9 ATC then this. He(me) even answers back without any prompting! Strange also having the default ATC come on at the same time. And strange getting an intial altitude (4000ft) then after reaching it, no word other then continue own navigation without any passing off or further climb instructions. 

 

What a strange, strange program.

You don't answer back, it is the virtual co-pilot mode 2 that is still enabled. Turn it off (mode 0) in options or using the corresponding hotkey to have to roger/readback everything manually.

Default ATC: Just turn it off, as instructed in the manual/FAQ.

Regarding altitude: Maye you missed the instructions to climb further? You can reconfigure the Say Again hotkey to see the last 10 instructions to you in the options. If you really think there is a bug, please report it in the PF3 forum and send the content of your Logs directory.

Regarding "No better then the default FS9" and "What a strange, strange program" ... Many here would really appreciate to have a more pleasant discussion, such bashing does not help. OK, there have been worse posts in this thread, your post is good enough to be worth replying to

Carlito and J van E are correct in you need to find what you prefer. Canned ATC will never surprise you, that's why it's called Canned. Vatsim or Pilotedge are the only true way to be surprised.

 

I don't care much for PATCX even though I own it they need to work on the proper atc phrasing as it ruins the immersion for me.

They also need vectors then maybe I'll look at it again. Another issue is the developer disappears for a year or two at a time which is odd.

 

RC4 has the most accurate atc phrasing but does miss out on other things. I used RC since v2 back in the 90s. Good support from the developer.

 

PF3 so far is good at certain thing but so far it does what I prefer which in the end is all that matters. Also good support from the developer.

 

I will purchase PF3 and use it along with RC4 depending on what I feel.

Also stars and sids either at departure or approach, many times,  are determined by ATC computers, despite what the filed FP says. 

The computers have a database of published departures and arrivals! That amazing lol

RC4 has the most accurate atc phrasing

 

 

I would question that severely. To give one example "Taxi to position and hold!"

In the US back a few years ago that was the phrase. Lately it has now changed to Line up and Wait.

 

You can look up the article on the AOPA website. Remeber this is in the US not Europe.

I'm a little hesitant to continue to respond on page 20 of a thread... but here goes....

 

After spending some more time with PF3, I'm beginning to change my tune. PF3 has a lot more to offer than PFE... and it goes way beyond just getting rid of the old adventure generator. It is definitely more polished... still a few bugs here and there; but much more reliable. Other changes are subtle but pretty powerful. The STAR setup is not as much of a burden as it used to be. I still wish it had access to airac so it could assign procedures itself; but the method it uses is more flexible than I originally I thought. Bottom line, you really don't have to enter every SID/STAR waypoint in the flightplan to fly a terminal procedure... I'm thinking just the first and last fixes will suffice in most cases. I'll have more to say about it later.

 

To correct a few errors I've read:

 

The purpose of Air Traffic Control is to ensure the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of traffic in the airspace system. To facilitate that purpose, controllers are well within their rights to butcher your carefully thought-out flightplan beyond all recognition... but they will usually only make minor amendments. Anyone who thinks a flightplan is a directive to inform a controller exactly how to handle your flight is in for a very rude awakening if they ever fly in the real world.

 

Towers issue vectors all the time. Sorry Ray...they do.

 

Departure will rip you off a SID faster than the Concorde if there's conflicting traffic. Enroute controllers will also take you off the SID if it saves flying time and there's no conflicting traffic. I often request direct to a waypoint to cut the corners (and most flightsim ATC programs provide that functionality).

 

Vectoring off a STAR is the rule... not the exception! Most European STARS don't explicitly spell out where vectors occur in the procedure... but your chances of getting one are pretty high if there's any traffic whatsoever.

 

Don't think of the FAF in PF3 as the actual FAF for your instrument approach. From what I can gather, the FAF serves 2 purposes in PF3: 1) It determines the final altitude you'll get before being cleared for the approach and 2) It determines how far out ATC will vector you to join the final. The fact that it's different than the actual FAF for the instrument approach has no impact whatsoever on the experience.

 

It's still early days yet... but I'm really starting to like what I see with PF3. I'm off to try another flight.

One of my fpls EGKK --> LIMF I have the BOGNA 1M SID which has an altitude constraint of 6,000ft all the way to Bogna. Sometimes PF3 keeps me down at 6,000 or at other times I will get a message from PF3 to climb earlier.

PF3 is quite good at varying its instructions. So you will get the unexpected sometimes.

 I think in the end we all have our own ideas of how it's supposed to work, and crazy as it sounds it's all very regional. Jon_aus has his expectations from where he's most used to operating (commonly referring to Melbourne in this thread), as does Ray Proudfoot (in the UK and Europe where pilot nav/rnav sids are more common). Bobsk8 with plenty of real world busy US tracon type of control among others but the list goes on and on and on from all over the globe.

 The problem is that ATC isn't done the same way around the world, sure there are similar standards that people are used to using, but phraseology and procedures will vary greatly. Toss in various simisms that are so common to the flightsim user pool and it only mixes the pot further.  Ever notice that the commonly known ATCO's who frequent the forums here (including others that aren't as well known) have kept well clear of this thread as they are well aware that to make an ATC program that satisfies everyone is virtually to impossible due to all of these variances.

I have to chime in there. The more you use it, the more you get used to it (it DOES do things differently and you might be irritated enough to consider some of them to be bugs at first sight), the more you like it. My first six flights with it were unpleasant, all flights afterwards were very enjoyable.

 

Yes, I was negatove towards PF3 after I bought it. This has changed. I deleted PFE from my SSD now, and I removed the Radar Contact shortcut from my desktop. This should tell you something.

 

 

Towers issue vectors all the time. Sorry Ray...they do.

 

Can you provide an example airport where this happens please? I do fly in the US with RC4 but only out of major airports. Once I have an airport I'll setup a flight in RC4 and see how it operates.

 

 

One of my fpls EGKK --> LIMF I have the BOGNA 1M SID which has an altitude constraint of 6,000ft all the way to Bogna. Sometimes PF3 keeps me down at 6,000 or at other times I will get a message from PF3 to climb earlier.

 

Ouch! 6000 all the way to BOGNA would not be realistic in the real world. The restriction is only there for safety. ATC will always clear aircraft higher asap. I can't envisage a situation where an aircraft would be held at 6000 for the entirety of the SID.