How realistic is the default P3d ATC?

[Glynn 405]

 

 

In the past, release has taken place during fall or winter. This year seems to be about the same as every year before that.

 

So I will have waited a year to see if the radio bug is fixed ?

Why on earth can the developer not patch the application in a timely manner, a year between bug fixes is really not good enough.

[Jarkko 59]

So I will have waited a year to see if the radio bug is fixed ?

Why on earth can the developer not patch the application in a timely manner, a year between bug fixes is really not good enough.

 

As far as I know, a quick fix wasn't released as users reported that they can work around the bug by using "Say Again" function if they get no reply.

 

FWIW I personally have not run into this bug, as my co-pilot is handling the radios as he would/should on commercial flight I do. 

Edited May 9, 2016 by Jarkko

[Potroh 14]

 

 

We are not hiding anything from the users. In the current beta, there is still one show stopper that needs fixing. No release before it's fixed. ProATC has been known to get one free update per year. In the past, release has taken place during fall or winter. This year seems to be about the same as every year before that.

Like Bob mentioned, full name is required due to trolls messing up the forum in the past.

Why do we ask a log every time? The most common cause of problems, is that the user hasn't read the manual (or the forums FAQ). From the log, we can see what parts of the manual he/she has desided to skip over and point him/her in the right direction.

 

I appreciate your reasoning.

Nevertheless, the strictness of your forum rules simply don't match with the efforts of the developer.

Coming out with annual updates and fixes, just because you consider it to be a widely excepted "tradition" is simply unacceptable. Fine with LM, Microsoft, Adobe and the like, but even those try to fix things much sooner - usually. A single-developer company, be it the best and most inventive software around, simply cannot afford that - if he wants to stay on the commercial market and in case he has strong rivals.

 

Although I do understand the reasoning behind the strict forum rules, but it is a tiny bit too much for supporting an almost dormant piece of software.

 

I also use PatcX, I also claim that it is still the best available for IFR flights, but it doesn't change the fact that there is something definitely wrong with the approach how this promising piece of software is developed.

There's the "seriousness factor" behind every try to sell software on this ever growing market, where PatcX would be NOWHERE - IF there was meaningful and valuable rivalry around... in case it has been developed with the speed, enthusiasm and quality we experience...

[Jarkko 59]

the strictness of your forum rules simply don't match with the efforts of the developer.

I don't see how these are connected. The forum is run by volunteers on their free time. I personally prefer to spend my free time helping other users, instead of fighting off trolls.

 

Coming out with annual updates and fixes, just because you consider it to be a widely excepted "tradition" is simply unacceptable.

And when have I said what is acceptable to me? I personally release updates for my software every two to four weeks, but I get paid for each update.

 

Getting paid for each update is the big difference how different developers function. ProATC updates have been free for at least four years now and the program has changed hugely in this time frame. We are not talking about mere bug fixes, we are talking enhancing the product in such a way that it should be considered a free upgrade, instead of an update.

 

I also use PatcX, I also claim that it is still the best available for IFR flights, but it doesn't change the fact that there is something definitely wrong with the approach how this promising piece of software is developed.

Thank you for your insight. Many years ago, I started developing an ATC add-on as there wasn't a complete product on the market (I have been a software developer for close to 30 years. 20 of it professionally). It was only after I tried to develop the add-on myself, I realized how hard it is to simulate ATC.

 

Not only do you need to develop logic similar to what the FMC's have to deal with to get climb and descent calculations correct (the easy part), but then you have to deal with the platform that wasn't built for having add-on ATC added to it. This comes painfully obvious the first time you try to interact with the AI aircraft. It can be done, but takes much more effort than it first seems.

 

It's also worth mentioning, that ATC add-ons are not simulating something that exists. There isn't a computer run ATC network around the world. We are still using people as ATC in the real world. Simulating people's actions/decisions is very hard to do in a believable way. ATC is an open ended problem and solving these problems isn't fun with the computer for which everything is either true or false.

 

When you dive deep into how ATC operates around the world, you will soon discover that almost every country has it's SOP. Then you also have completely polar opposite ways of operating in the US vs in Europe to deal with.

 

This is why I stopped my own development efforts to develop an ATC add-on and bought almost every ATC add-on on the market (also started beta testing for ATC developers). Couple of reasons for doing so:

 

1) I would never be able to break even on development time needed vs price/units sold for current add-ons.

 

2) As there isn't a big company making an ATC add-on, I knew that I had to purchase several products as there was no way that one product would meet all my needs (IFR, VFR, Voice Interaction, support for US flights, support for EU flights, SIDs/STARs, ...)

 

So the bottom line is, that if you are an ATC add-on developer, you have my utmost respect. You are solving a problem I personally deemed to be too demanding of time and energy.

[ErichB 3,672]

I fly New and different routes on pretty much every flight. Right now, I have over 350 flight plans that I have used with my VA and add at least 10 a week. Let's take an example, I just finished a VA flight from KCMH to KDCA. I had ATC from Clearance Del to ground at the arrival airport and all normal controllers in between. At this exact moment after landing as I am writing this post, there is not one controller on Vatsim in the entire United States. That is why I find Vatsim totally useless. I also don't want to gear my flying or my life around a few events a month.

I get where you're coming from Bob

 

The best place for VATSIM coverage is without doubt Europe, particularly Germany, the Nordics and the UK.  I've also had ATC disappear on me mid-flight, but it hasn't happened often in Europe.

 

One good about flying online with VATSIM or IVAO regardless of whether there is coverage or not, is that it ensures a discipline for your flight. Consulting charts and proper planning is not something I did for every flight for offline flying, but flying online forces you to do that for every flight regardless of whether there is cover or not.

 

I've used various versions of canned ATC products over the years and they were not in the slightest a convincing experience (ATC based on key presses - I can do without that) - apart from which, it doesn't really provide a structured environment. You can still do whatever you like.

 

Having said that, for guys/girls new to simming, a well made ATC product is a good and safe sandbox to learn.

[vololiberista 205]

I see PF3 got only one mention! It is the most flexible ATC programme currently available allowing the user to fly pretty much as they wish. You can fly VFR, IFR, be vectored and use SIDs STARs etc. Termonology is correct for FAA and ICAO. It has 119 voices, the overwhelming majority of which are not remotely robotic. You can adjust voices to your taste. It is continuously and fully supported and the developer listens to "wishes" and applies them if they are relevant and correct procedure.

[Jarkko 59]

 

 

It is continuously and fully supported and the developer listens to "wishes" and applies them if they are relevant and correct procedure.

 

Can you please request him to add support for reading AIRAC from Navigraph. This would give me the needed push to purchase PF3.

[ZKOKQ 986]

.

[Potroh 14]

 

 

I don't see how these are connected. The forum is run by volunteers on their free time. I personally prefer to spend my free time helping other users, instead of fighting off trolls.

 

Jarkko,

 

Hope you will understand that it is not a question of trolls. When I signed up to the forum and asked a trivially simple question, the answer was: "You need to sign your real name as per the forum rules"... etc. No answer, JUST a mild reminder to sticking to the rules. It is simply anything but kind or nice.
Gives a bad feeling, makes the forum's atmosphere dry and rigid.

I'm also a moderator in one of the many FS related forums, we support our own addon, which is partly used by professional companies for training, without real names and in six years there was a single user only who had to be banned. That's all. Too strict rules or unnecessary obligations take away the joy part.

 

 

Getting paid for each update is the big difference how different developers function. ProATC updates have been free for at least four years now and the program has changed hugely in this time frame. We are not talking about mere bug fixes, we are talking enhancing the product in such a way that it should be considered a free upgrade, instead of an update.

 

What you say is simply unacceptable (without using the "ridiculous" word). If a developer is NOT PAID for each update he does, does it mean it is not his task to do the fixes??? So after each half-baked update he can sit back, return to his well-paid job and after a year the paying customers have to be grateful again that he touched his own software again in his free time??? What type of mentality is this?

 

In this very forum you can see the known and respected addon companies (in many cases also a single developer behind them) who do update their stuff according to the P3D changes a day after release! Naturally and obviously they are NOT PAID for these updates. So according to your notion and agenda neither Pete Dowson nor Virtuali, REX or HI-Fi, scenery designers and many others do it WRONG, because they don't get separately paid for each update???

 

BTW, I'm also a developer, having 43 FS related commercial projects behind me, I was the one doing the very first native FSX scenery on the market after porting a then almost brand new FS9 scenery for the new platform. Took me more than two months to do in a hot summer, but never even thought of getting separately paid for an upgrade, as 90% of developers do not in the FS world.

 

So in case you are satisfied with your own notion, there's something definitely wrong or unusual about it, to say the least.

ProatcX is NOT a cheap program, so even if new features were introduced annually, the necessary small fixes SHOULD come much earlier. You have the infrastructure for that, ProatcX checks for updates when fired up, so there's no excuse leaving known, easy and nasty bugs in place like the QNH is 0, descend to alt zero, just to mention the most obvious ones.

 

There's another factor though: I bought ProatcX last year, a month before the last update came, so frankly I do not give a damn about the fact that it had been updated for free, years before I bought it. If it was continuously developed and updated, I wouldn't mind paying for a version 2 either, if the quality was worth it.

 

 

 

Not only do you need to develop logic similar to what the FMC's have to deal with to get climb and descent calculations correct (the easy part), but then you have to deal with the platform that wasn't built for having add-on ATC added to it. This comes painfully obvious the first time you try to interact with the AI aircraft. It can be done, but takes much more effort than it first seems.

 

I definitely agree here, it is not easy to do an ATC program. I'd never even try that...

But it is possible as PFS shows, and Adam Sofran who did the FS-ATC at Microsoft, was also an FS enthusiast first, as a matter of fact he did the first FSUIPC version for the community. No ATC program is as good as that one, at least for VFR, that is...

 

Yes it is difficult to do an IFR ATC well, but this fact doesn't cover the sad part, namely that your developer continuously abandons his own product for a year or so.

[vololiberista 205]

Can you please request him to add support for reading AIRAC from Navigraph. This would give me the needed push to purchase PF3.

That has been raised but there are other priorities at the moment. PF3 allows you to enter existing SIDs and STARs for any runway anyway.

[Christopher Low 5,414]

 

My only gripe about default with VFR is with Flight Following - RW - ATC typically knows your destination - therefore - they would facilitate the handoff to any controlled airspace at your destination airport - which I don't believe default ATC does...

 

Yes, this is the one main aspect of FSX default ATC that I was surprised wasn't included when I switched from FU3 to FSX back in 2008. The ATC controllers did hand me over to tower controlled airspace in Flight Unlimited 3.

[Jarkko 59]

Potroh, on 10 May 2016 - 1:18 PM, said:

When I signed up to the forum and asked a trivially simple question, the answer was: "You need to sign your real name as per the forum rules"... etc. No answer, JUST a mild reminder to sticking to the rules. It is simply anything but kind or nice.

You can try the same here on the PMDG forum and you will get the same song and dance.

Potroh, on 10 May 2016 - 1:18 PM, said:

I'm also a moderator in one of the many FS related forums, we support our own addon, which is partly used by professional companies for training, without real names and in six years there was a single user only who had to be banned. That's all.

I have been threatened with a law suite as a forum moderator, so that's where we are different.

 

 

Potroh, on 10 May 2016 - 1:18 PM, said:

What you say is simply unacceptable (without using the "ridiculous" word). If a developer is NOT PAID for each update he does, does it mean it is not his task to do the fixes???

Software is sold as is. There is no obligation to release updates. The developer however has chosen to release updates.

 

Potroh, on 10 May 2016 - 1:18 PM, said:

 

In this very forum you can see the known and respected addon companies (in many cases also a single developer behind them) who do update their stuff according to the P3D changes a day after release!

ProATC has been compatible with P3D without any need for updates, so how is this relevant?

 

Potroh, on 10 May 2016 - 1:18 PM, said:

so even if new features were introduced annually, the necessary small fixes SHOULD come much earlier. ... What type of mentality is this?

 

(edit: hand to combine quotes as I exceeded the quote limit)

 

And that is the way it has worked. After every annual release there is a bug fix period. When urgent problems (happens on most flight and/or for most users) have been tackled, then a new dev cycle begins.

 

It's "getting you family fed" type of mentality. Not all FS products do well enough to cover all your costs.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Jarkko

[tf51d 284]

That has been raised but there are other priorities at the moment. PF3 allows you to enter existing SIDs and STARs for any runway anyway.

Actually that's not what's really happening. All it's doing is allowing you to define zones where ATC will essentially allow you to do anything you want without complaint from ATC. You can do 360 turns it won't care. Where as PATC dynamically assigns SID/STAR,  based on weather/wind and expects you you to fly it according to profile. Which is why it needs it's NAVAID DB in sync with you FMC NAVDATA, and PFE/PF3 also RC4 don't.

[Bobsk8 12,937]

I get where you're coming from Bob

 

The best place for VATSIM coverage is without doubt Europe, particularly Germany, the Nordics and the UK.  I've also had ATC disappear on me mid-flight, but it hasn't happened often in Europe.

 

One good about flying online with VATSIM or IVAO regardless of whether there is coverage or not, is that it ensures a discipline for your flight. Consulting charts and proper planning is not something I did for every flight for offline flying, but flying online forces you to do that for every flight regardless of whether there is cover or not.

 

I've used various versions of canned ATC products over the years and they were not in the slightest a convincing experience (ATC based on key presses - I can do without that) - apart from which, it doesn't really provide a structured environment. You can still do whatever you like.

 

Having said that, for guys/girls new to simming, a well made ATC product is a good and safe sandbox to learn.

 

If you feel that way, you should try PATC, because it does have you fly in a structured environment. As a real pilot that learned to fly in one of the busiest ATC areas in the world, South Florida, I learned how to properly fly in that environment, and PATC is the only thing I have found in simming that comes close, and that includes my 2 years on Vatsim. The key presses used in PATC, are much less than the actual switching of frequencies that one uses in real life flying from one airport to another. I look up charts, make flight plans, study departure and approach charts, use sids and stars on every flight, that change with current weather conditions, etc.etc.  I have tried and purchased just about every ATC program since they were released, and PATC in my opinion is leaps and bounds better than anything I have used. I live a few miles from Atlanta Airport, and when the wind is from a certain direction, I fly into Atlanta using PATC and the assigned star that PATC gives me. If I go outside and look up , I can see the airliners, flying the same exact star that I just did in my 737. Doesn't get any more real than that. 

[Gregg_Seipp 573]

 

 

The key presses used in PATC, are much less than the actual switching of frequencies that one uses in real life flying from one airport to another.

 

What are the keypresses?  Do you always have to bring up 'the menu' or are there quick keys for simply acknowledging a transmission.  E.g. I can imagine that under normal circumstances there's an order to the transmissions...taxi to X...roger...contact tower...roger.  That's an oversimplification but I think you get the point.  If it's canned and clear then a simple keypress without any menu would be pretty decent and less intrusive to the immersion.  Is there a demo version?