June 2, 201610 yr Moderator As it should be. As long as it doesn't give you a heart attack! :smile: Ray (Cheshire, England). System: P3D v5.3HF2, Intel i9-13900K, MSI 4090 GAMING X TRIO 24G, Crucial T700 4Tb M.2 SSD, Asus ROG Maximus Z790 Hero, 32Gb Corsair Vengeance DDR5 6000Mhz RAM, Win 11 Pro 64-bit, BenQ PD3200U 32” UHD monitor, Fulcrum One yoke, Fulcrum Throttle Quadrant. Cheadle Hulme Weather website.
June 2, 201610 yr Is there any brave soul who owns both PF3 and ProATCX that can give a fair assessment of both side-by-side? Gregg Seipp "A good landing is when you can walk away from the airplane. A great landing is when you can reuse it." i9 64GB RAM, GTX-5090
June 2, 201610 yr It has now been well documented that ProATC has only 4 pilot voices whereas PF3 has a few more. The other thing that annoyed me about ProATC is the failure rate to handle FSC flightplans, about one in three. It fails to recognise some waypoints. All AIRACS being the latest.
June 2, 201610 yr Question : is ProAtc can just "radar vector" you ? Thanks, Regards, Richard Portier Richard Portier MAXIMUS VI FORMULA|Intel® Core i7-4770K [email protected] x8|NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080ti|M16GB DDR3|Windows10 Pro 64|P3Dv5|AFS2|TrackIr5|Saitek ProFlight Yoke + Quadrant + Rudder Pedal|Thrustmaster Warthog A10|
June 2, 201610 yr It has now been well documented that ProATC has only 4 pilot voices whereas PF3 has a few more. The other thing that annoyed me about ProATC is the failure rate to handle FSC flightplans, about one in three. It fails to recognise some waypoints. All AIRACS being the latest. 115 more is more than a few lol System: MSFS2024, ASUS Rog Stryx Z790-A, Intel i9-14900KF, Asus ROG Ryujin III 360 , Asus Hyperion Case,Rog Stryx 4090 OC, Samsung 970 EVO M.2 SSD, 1Tb Samsung 860 EVO SSD,64Gb G Skill Memory, Asus Aura 1200W Gold PSU,Win 11 ,LG C4 48" 4K OLED Screen., Airbus TCA Full Kit, Stream Deck XL. WinWing FCU, EFIS, MCDU
June 2, 201610 yr Gregg_Seipp, on 02 Jun 2016 - 10:58 PM, said: Is there any brave soul who owns both PF3 and ProATCX that can give a fair assessment of both side-by-side? This is one of the reasons, I wished that the Avsim ATC challenge thread would have received more video submissions. Would have made comparing a bit easier. I have been planning for a very long time to do a side by side comparison video of the ATC add-ons that I own (same weather, same flight plan, and so on), but haven't had the time to do so yet as it would require many hours to fly and couple more to edit all the videos together. Jaroberts, on 02 Jun 2016 - 11:27 PM, said: ProATC is the failure rate to handle FSC flightplans, about one in three. ProATC and FSC are 100% compatible together, when you know what to do (Both programs must have the same AIRAC cycle imported. If AIRAC doesn't match, nothing works. Same goes for any other add-on that uses AIRAC). Options to use FSC with ProATC: 1) Export fsx flight plan format out FSC and import it to ProATC or 2) Take copy of the FSC route string. Add DCT between any route waypoints that are not connected by airways in the route. Then import it using the ProATC copy/paste import. So for example FSC route: ESSA ARS N623 TEKVA ESEBA ENGM would have to be modified like to a format found below. Notice the add DCT between TEKVA and ESEBA. For ProATC, you need to add DCT between any waypoints that are not connected with an airway. ESSA ARS N623 TEKVA DCT ESEBA ENGM The above also happens the be the format eurofpl.eu uses for real world flight plans. There aren't many ATC products, where you can take a real world flight plan string (from flightaware for example) and paste it in. Flight plan importing doesn't get much faster than that. ProATC is one of them. To see it in action, here is my (very) old video (if you have time to watch the whole video, you will see me also use FSC): Flight plan importing starts at 20min 36s: EDIT: I may need to do a 2016 version of the video. The old one is way too long and lacks structure. Edited June 2, 201610 yr by Jarkko Jarkko Puustinen (FSX live streamer, YouTuber) http://www.twitch.tv/virtualfreightdog http://www.youtube.com/user/VirtualFreightDog
June 2, 201610 yr Question : is ProAtc can just "radar vector" you ? It's the other way around. ProATC rarely vectors you. ProATC reads all the SIDs/STARs, approaches and transitions from the AIRAC data (provided by Navigraph and Aerosoft). Not all ATC add-ons have this level of support and this is why these products mostly do vectoring. To be honest, I know ProATC users that have requested, that ProATC would do more vectoring than it does currently. If you prefer vectoring, RC4 is hard to beat in my book. Jarkko Puustinen (FSX live streamer, YouTuber) http://www.twitch.tv/virtualfreightdog http://www.youtube.com/user/VirtualFreightDog
June 2, 201610 yr ProATC reads all the SIDs/STARs, approaches and transitions from the AIRAC data (provided by Navigraph and Aerosoft). Not all ATC add-ons have this level of support and this is why these products mostly do vectoring. To be honest, I know ProATC users that have requested, that ProATC would do more vectoring than it does currently. But at large airports RW you almost always get vectors and often speed adjustments for sequencing. It doesn't do that?? Gregg Seipp "A good landing is when you can walk away from the airplane. A great landing is when you can reuse it." i9 64GB RAM, GTX-5090
June 2, 201610 yr But at large airports RW you almost always get vectors and often speed adjustments for sequencing. It doesn't do that?? It depends where you operate. ProATC normally vectors you from STAR exit to the approach, which works fine in Europe (you can also force ProATC to assign approach transitions to stay safe when flying to airports with high terrain, which is a real life saver). So to answer the question, yes, ProATC does vectoring and speed adjustment, but... The US STAR structure is somewhat problematic for ProATC. This is because the AIRAC data provided for ProATC doesn't contain info such as "expect vectors after xxx" (even though this info can be found on the plates). So flying the full STAR gives excellent to OK results in Europe, but not equally good results in the US. AFAIK this has been listed as a known issue and hopefully resolved in one of the future releases. In short, ProATC would start vectoring you sooner off the STAR. Then again, the early vectoring would cause problems if there is high terrain around the airport and this is why it's not a fast fix to do right. Edited June 2, 201610 yr by Jarkko Jarkko Puustinen (FSX live streamer, YouTuber) http://www.twitch.tv/virtualfreightdog http://www.youtube.com/user/VirtualFreightDog
June 3, 201610 yr It's the other way around. ProATC rarely vectors you. ProATC reads all the SIDs/STARs, approaches and transitions from the AIRAC data (provided by Navigraph and Aerosoft). Not all ATC add-ons have this level of support and this is why these products mostly do vectoring. To be honest, I know ProATC users that have requested, that ProATC would do more vectoring than it does currently. If you prefer vectoring, RC4 is hard to beat in my book. Thank you for these clarifications. For vectoring I use VoxAtc (very good), PF3 (does the job) or Pilot2Atc (I have it but I don't use it too much) But at large airports RW you almost always get vectors and often speed adjustments for sequencing. It doesn't do that?? I had the same question in mind :smile: It depends where you operate. ProATC normally vectors you from STAR exit to the approach, which works fine in Europe (you can also force ProATC to assign approach transitions to stay safe when flying to airports with high terrain, which is a real life saver). So to answer the question, yes, ProATC does vectoring and speed adjustment, but... The US STAR structure is somewhat problematic for ProATC. This is because the AIRAC data provided for ProATC doesn't contain info such as "expect vectors after xxx" (even though this info can be found on the plates). So flying the full STAR gives excellent to OK results in Europe, but not equally good results in the US. AFAIK this has been listed as a known issue and hopefully resolved in one of the future releases. In short, ProATC would start vectoring you sooner off the STAR. Then again, the early vectoring would cause problems if there is high terrain around the airport and this is why it's not a fast fix to do right. Interesting to know. In fact I use Sid or Star only in mountainous areas for the reasons that you explained, otherwise I prefer vectoring. Thank you again. Regards, Richard Portier Richard Portier MAXIMUS VI FORMULA|Intel® Core i7-4770K [email protected] x8|NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080ti|M16GB DDR3|Windows10 Pro 64|P3Dv5|AFS2|TrackIr5|Saitek ProFlight Yoke + Quadrant + Rudder Pedal|Thrustmaster Warthog A10|
June 3, 201610 yr I am attempting just the opposite - comparing RC4 and PF3. Have owned RC4 for a long time, and just purchased PF3 the other day. Really like RC4 but it has shortcomings with SID and STAR vectoring depending on how close.the first waypoint is from dep rwy. Thought I'd give PF3 a try since it seems similar in ways but more flexible. Time will tell. Glenn Wilkinson SpoilerMy specs: AMD Ryzen 5 5600X @ 3.7 GHz, 32 GB 3200MHz DDR4, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 12 GB, 2TB SAMSUNG EVO Plus SSD M2, 2TB WD Black Gaming SSD M2, 8TB WD Black Gaming HDD, 4TB WD Black Gaming Ext HDD, Windows 10, X-Plane 12 + large quantity of 3rd party addons scenery & aircraft. Honeycomb Alpha & Bravo, Thrustmaster TFRP. It's an older machine but gets the job done quite nicely - smooth with no stutters!
June 3, 201610 yr Sorry I was joking. I know, I had PFE and I have PF3 where many of the voices are the same.
June 3, 201610 yr I've used RC and it had too many short-comings. Bottom line, there aren't any real good alternatives IMO. I even tried to tell JD how to enhance RC so it would work better, but he wasn't having it. In all reality, ATC in a sim is just providing the immersion and interaction. I'm not a developer or coder, however, it seems that plenty could be done to make things more realistic. For one, allow one to import a flight plan and enter altitude/speed constraints in the plan to meet STAR/DP crossing restrictions. Also, allow the pilot to descend to whatever altitude they want when requested to meet performance characteristics of particular planes. Allow an IAP to be entered, perhaps more than one for a menu option to fly one as you see fit. Allow better weather deviations and diversions. Allow a flight plan change (e.g., Wx, emergency) Only circumvent your preprogrammed FP when traffic is a factor. Better voices. Default ACT when sped up with EVP is great. Others are too robotic. - Chris Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Elite AX | Intel Core i9 13900KF | Gigabyte GeForce RTX 4090 24 GB | 64GB DDR5 SDRAM | Corsair H100i Elite 240mm Liquid Cooling | 1TB & 2TB Samsung Gen 4 SSD | 1000 Watt Gold PSU | Windows 11 Pro | Thrustmaster Boeing Yoke | Thrustmaster TCA Captain X Airbus | Asus ROG 38" 4k IPS Monitor (PG38UQ) Asus Maximus VII Hero motherboard | Intel i7 4790k CPU | MSI GTX 970 4 GB video card | Corsair DDR3 2133 32GB SDRAM | Corsair H50 water cooler | Samsung 850 EVO 250GB SSD (2) | EVGA 1000 watt PSU - Retired
June 3, 201610 yr JarkkoThere aren't many ATC products, where you can take a real world flight plan string (from flightaware for example) and paste it in. Flight plan importing doesn't get much faster than that. What about http://onlineflightplanner.org/ That gets its data from routefinder which always has an up to date airac and it's free. No subscription or anything and I can generate a fpl in 14 different formats. .fgfp (FlightGear) .flp (Airbus X) .fltplan (iFly) .fms (X-Plane) .kml (Google Earth) .pdf .pln (FS 2004) .pln (FS X) .route (iFly 747 V2) .rte (PMDG) .rte (Level-D) .rte (QualityWings) .txt (JarDesign A320) .fmc (VasFMC) Fpls generated through routefinder are generally more accurate than pfpl And in PF3 it takes on average less than 5 seconds to generate stuff from the input fpl. Super VC10 into LOWI with PF3 at a cinema near you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=298UDyNmgUA
June 3, 201610 yr Fpls generated through routefinder are generally more accurate than pfpl And in PF3 it takes on average less than 5 seconds to generate stuff from the input fpl. As for 5 seconds to great a flight plan, let's compare steps required to import for example the following real world route ESSA ARS N623 TEKVA DCT ESEBA ENGM 1) ProATC 1. Copy the route string 2. Open new flight plan window 3. Paste in the copied route string 4. Enter flight level 5. Enter primary alternate DONE 2) PF3 1. Copy the route string 2. Paste the route string into simbrief/vroute/PFPX/FSC 3. Convert the route string to one of the fpl formats that PF3 supports 4. Save the flight plan to your computer. 5. Open new flight plan by browsing your computer for the exported flight plan you created in the previous step 6. Enter flight level 7. Set transition altitudes for your origin and destination airports 8. Find SID plates for your origin and enter in (or verify) the SIDs available for each runway (and altitude restrictions) 9. Find STAR plates for your destination and enter in (or verify) the STARs available for each runway (and altitude restrictions) 10. Find approach plates for your destination airport and come up with a Minimum FAF altitude for your destination airport 11. Enter alternate airport DONE --- So what are the main differences for me? - With ProATC, you do not need external tools to convert real word routes to a format that the ATC program understands. - You need to input far less data into ProATC => much faster to get into air. Jarkko Puustinen (FSX live streamer, YouTuber) http://www.twitch.tv/virtualfreightdog http://www.youtube.com/user/VirtualFreightDog
Create an account or sign in to comment