If PF3 is like PFE (and I think it is) It will assign runways based on conditions, but it won't change your approach as it never really assigns one, it just establishes an entry point to it. At this point you are past the transition point you defined in the flightplan, so it will allow you to fly any pattern you want until you reach the FAF point at which time it will vector you to final. It's up to you to select an alternate approach from there if it's different then what you originally planned.

If PF3 is like PFE (and I think it is) It will assign runways based on conditions, but it won't change your approach as it never really assigns one, it just establishes an entry point to it. At this point you are past the transition point you defined in the flightplan, so it will allow you to fly any pattern you want until you reach the FAF point at which time it will vector you to final. It's up to you to select an alternate approach from there if it's different then what you originally planned.

PF3 is in a sense the son of PFE. But it is a much more complex and polished programme. You no longer have to deal with the PF2000 module. All approach procedures have been tweaked. So now you can either fly your own route from the last STAR wypt to the FAP or get vectors. PF3 will descend you to the correct altitude to begin your let down. Your approach is based on your flightplan as it is your STAR. So you will either be vectored or you will fly from your last wypt which wil be the End of STAR. If at any point whilst in contact with approach there is a runway change you will be vectored. The problem of wypts being too close has largely been eliminated and you can choose to ignore any warning given by PF3. There are very few instances now where that causes problems.

PF3 is a very flexible programme allowing you to make small changes here and there for any kind of flight.

I've been switching back and forth between PF3 and Pro-ATC/X the last few days...it's been a while since I ran the two programs head-to-head.  To answer the OP's question, I think PF3 is hands down the better experience right now. 

 

For me, it starts with the callsigns...when running a Delta or AAL flight, for example, Pro-ATC/X uses "Delta Airlines" instead of "Delta"--or "American Airlines" instead of just "American."  As in "Delta Airlines two one two, turn left..." versus "Delta two-twelve, turn left..."  Maybe it doesn't sound like a big deal--but to anyone with any experience in IFR flying, it's grossly unnatural...something like if every time someone addressed you they used your full name, e.g. "Good Morning, William Randolph Armstrong the 3rd" versus "Good Morning, Bill."  It makes every single radio call seek out my spine and start my leg twitching in aggravation.

 

Then there's the micromanagement of your approaches flying in Pro-ATC/X.  Cleared for the approach?  Expecting to fly it as depicted?  Well, no, you'll get ATC trying to call every single altitude change and turn...and if you start to descend per the IAP, the program will give you a steady stream of climb instructions to get you back to where it (erroneously) thinks you should be.  Or how about radar vectors, where it'll clear you to a nonexistent fix it creates internally...of course that fix doesn't exist on any approach plate or map...but you're still expected to somehow fly there.  Argh.

 

Where Pro-ATC/X does seem to get through a flight without making me crazy is when the destination is served by a STAR that feeds directly into a procedure track approach...if your destination can be reached that way, you'll get fairly smooth passage.  But if radar vectors are needed, or flying a full procedure turn is in the cards, not so much.  For those that are laser-beam focused on SIDs and STARs, Pro-ATC/X will scratch that itch (until you're bloody).  To me, it's not that important...in over 20 years of real world jet flying, radar vectors on departure and arrival, even from busy airports that had published SID/STAR procedures, were the norm, SIDs and STARs were the exception, and even where used, a STAR usually ended up in a radar pickup with vectors to a visual or instrument final.  Pro-ATC/X grossly, horribly misses the boat there as it tries to shoehorn nearly every round-peg flight into that square SID/STAR hole..  For those that insist assignment of a STAR is somehow the gateway to "realism" then Pro-ATC/X may be your answer, whether it makes sense or not, whether it's really realistic or not.

 

I'm hoping some of these issues are sorted out in this year's Pro-ATC/X version update.  When I see posts from beta testers in March telling us that a problem has been fixed and then we find ourselves still waiting five months later in mid-August, it's hard to be positive about the experience.  At least with PF3, Dave March publishes updates on a timely basis, rather than keeping paying customers waiting for an entire year to fix known bugs.

 

Regards

Earlier a statement was made that a STAR is assigned by the approach controller. In the US this is usually not (I won't say never) the case. It is almost always assigned by the Center controller. The altitudes that they start at is almost always above the Approach Controls Airspace. Just for some background I have been a controller for 34 years with the last 17 at Santa Barbara Tower/TRACON.

 

Tony Megowan

By the way Tom I like the picture. Did the same flight about 4 years ago. A dream come true. What a flight

The "VOX ATC" has apparently stopped the development...

The "PRO ATC X" is good, but still basic... Apparently the developers are trying their best and I hope the next update comes soon...

There is another ATC addon that has active development and is worth taking a look: PILOT2ATC

I can only echo what "Robert Scott" posted. PF3 has the immersion. Proatc gives me that sinking feeling. They say the voice/pronunciation issues will come after the update. Should be the other way around IMHO.

I own ProATC/X but don't use it, since I'm extremely annoyed, that it doesn't use correct ATC callsigns... (SAS is called S.A.S and not Scandinavian for instance)... I know that this depends on the voice pack, but I haven't found any (yet) that matches this correctly - or is really good...

 

Do any of you (who use ProATC/X) have any suggestions of voice packs?

 

My thoughts also, but it's better than the default. I've asked the developer if I could assist with developing alternate voice packs, but have not had any positive response. It really grates me to have the Qantas callsign read back as QFA. In the meantime a user has developed several other voicepacks in various languages that might fill the gap until ProatcX comes good.

 

Voicepacks: http://mavecreations.weebly.com/voices-for-proatcx.html

PF3 will have an update by the end of the month. A lot of issues have been fixed and are under test at the moment by the beta team. PF3 has the greatest flexibilty of all the ATC add ons. This of course means that the user has to choose how flexible they want it and that can be a bit daunting initially. The other point is that PF3 is not a flight planning programme. It accepts a whole range of fpl formats created from other sources. So with PF3 you do need to know a little bit about flight planning. The benefit of that is that you can create a fpl exactly to your needs IFR or VFR vectors or SIDs/STARs etc. And it has 119 voices.

I tested PF3 and it appeared to me that it would only give you a STAR if you have one in your flight plan, and it would only give you that one. Is that correct?

 

If so, PF3 would be more like a flight follower, just like Peppy197 said at the beginning of this thread. If you fly on Vatsim, for instance, you need to be prepared for all kinds of changes to your flight plan. Pro-ATC has some of these aspects, but not all. With RC4 I do not recall that is does anything like that, and if my PF3 impression is correct, it wouldn't do this either.

 

Peter

Im a Pro ATC user , although its been a while since deciding to wait for an update. SIDs STARs  are decent and usually implemented as per charts albeit a little too strict about it and even want you to return if its not to the letter.

What I hope improves is the vectoring. STARs are not always used and most controllers ive talked to end up bypassing them in favor of vectors. PATC did vector but they didnt make alot of sense and I ended up closing it and doing myself. Or as per STAR you dont need to go 20-30nm out on downwind. Just not necessary when its likely they would turn you in at 10 on base to intercept final approach.  This has all been alluded too already, im just conveying my thoughts as well what I hope is focused on fixing.

 

Also some clarity on how these artificial ATC determine how to use runways when winds are calm. Airports will always use defaults and only certain runways when winds calm. Calm being 5-8kts or less usually therefore the runway and wind direction irrelevant.  Would be nice to know if this could be setup in the settings.

I use none of these add-ons.

I fly online with IVAO. ( or VATSIM - they do the same)

It's free (you only need to register) and nothing beats talking to a real person.

As a bonus you get local real time weather.

I use none of these add-ons.

I fly online with IVAO. ( or VATSIM - they do the same)

It's free (you only need to register) and nothing beats talking to a real person.

As a bonus you get local real time weather.

 

Nothing beats talking to a real person if you can find one. 99% of the time i wind up on Unicomm talking to myself, because there are no controllers anywhere. Right now the number of controllers in the entire US is Zero!!!

That's why I often combine both: I almost always fly on Vatsim, but if no controller is only I simultaneously use Pro-ATC. In case Vatsim ATC becomes available I shut down Pro-ATC.

 

Peter

Also some clarity on how these artificial ATC determine how to use runways when winds are calm. Airports will always use defaults and only certain runways when winds calm. Calm being 5-8kts or less usually therefore the runway and wind direction irrelevant.  Would be nice to know if this could be setup in the settings.

 

Unfortunately you can't really dictate to AI what they do, only react to it. There are a couple of programs which do try to divert traffic and even force it to go in correct patters and even SIDs and STARs, but this complicated and well outsde the scope of an ATC program --  and it looks complicated to set up too, for each airport separately.

 

With some airport sceneries folks use different airport data according to the winds, but even that doesn't help a lot, because FS doesn't allow one end of a runway to be closed without also closing the other end. This is probably one of the most annoying restrictions there is!

 

The other solution is to make your weather program always force a strong enough ground wind to force the aI is a specific direction.

 

Pete

I use none of these add-ons.

I fly online with IVAO. ( or VATSIM - they do the same)

It's free (you only need to register) and nothing beats talking to a real person.

As a bonus you get local real time weather.

Yes, but today I flew from LCLK to LIMF and tonight from ZJSY to VHHX

Correct me if I'm wrong but I doubt very much that today there were or would be vatsim controllers for both routes including departure arrival etc.

You see this is the problem with vatsim --- coverage!

I tested PF3 and it appeared to me that it would only give you a STAR if you have one in your flight plan, and it would only give you that one. Is that correct?

 

If so, PF3 would be more like a flight follower, just like Peppy197 said at the beginning of this thread. If you fly on Vatsim, for instance, you need to be prepared for all kinds of changes to your flight plan. Pro-ATC has some of these aspects, but not all. With RC4 I do not recall that is does anything like that, and if my PF3 impression is correct, it wouldn't do this either.

 

Peter

 STARs are published on the relevant charts so if you are flying into an airport thta has published STARs you need to select the one you will use. You tell PF3 whether SIDs or STARS are to be expected and it will allow you to fly them or alternatively you will get vectored. There is a randomiser available for PF3 if you want that.

But for example if I am flying into Torino LIMF I can leave the STAR unchecked and PF3 ATC will vector me which often happens if there is not much traffic.

 

Where in real life there is a SID or a STAR you must fly that SID or STAR "unless" ATC say otherwise and PF3 allows that flexibility.