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.

 

+1

 

The one year wait between "bug fixes" / product updates is not good.

+1

 

The one year wait between "bug fixes" / product updates is not good.

No it isn't. It suggests that there is not much development interest. PF3 is constantly being tweaked not just to iron out bugs but also to incorporate valid suggestions and corrections.

No it isn't. It suggests that there is not much development interest. PF3 is constantly being tweaked not just to iron out bugs but also to incorporate valid suggestions and corrections.

 

So, in fact, is ProATC/X. It is just that, for some reason, the developer doesn't like it to go outside the Beta team until he has achieved his idea of the next level.

 

He is most asuredly ambitious and dedicated to getting the procedural and operational side right, and takes all the input on board. It's not a bad deal for Beta testers on the whole, but I do agree a one year gap between feeding users is a bit extreme.

 

Pete

So, in fact, is ProATC/X. It is just that, for some reason, the developer doesn't like it to go outside the Beta team until he has achieved his idea of the next level.

 

He is most asuredly ambitious and dedicated to getting the procedural and operational side right, and takes all the input on board. It's not a bad deal for Beta testers on the whole, but I do agree a one year gap between feeding users is a bit extreme.

 

Pete

 

Even though a one year period in between new versions appears long, developers can't do it right anyways. If you take the time to iron out the bugs and implement new functionality then people complain about long development cycles. If you release more frequently then people complain about bugs. Pro-ATC/X is perfectly usable and one can still enjoy the program in between release cycles. I'm just happy if there is constant progress. Because this has been a problem with a lot of ATC programs where development just dies at some point (has also been a problem with Pro-ATC/X in the past though).

Because this has been a problem with a lot of ATC programs where development just dies at some point (has also been a problem with Pro-ATC/X in the past though).

 

Yes, I remember the demise of RCV5 only too well -- dead under the weight of trying to deal with SIDs and STARs in the most realistic way, which in fact ProATC/X actually achieved last year, albeit with some things still to fix.

 

Apart from the online services, ProATC/X is still the only one to assign SIDs and STARs to suit the circumstance,  The other are rather like  RCV4 in that you either have to include them in your plan, or fly them anyway after getting released from vectors. I remember trying to use the instrument approach request in RCV4, always a job to fit in after contacting approach control before it started vectoring. You'd have to ignore the vectors whilst trying to get your request in, and go off-route anyway in the process!

 

Really, the future of sim ATC is pretty bright no matter which path one prefers.

 

Pete

 

 

 

 

 

Apart from the online services, ProATC/X is still the only one to assign SIDs and STARs to suit the circumstance, 

Pete

Except it is rather too good at asigning the wrong SIDs and STARs

So, in fact, is ProATC/X. It is just that, for some reason, the developer doesn't like it to go outside the Beta team until he has achieved his idea of the next level.

 

He is most asuredly ambitious and dedicated to getting the procedural and operational side right, and takes all the input on board. It's not a bad deal for Beta testers on the whole, but I do agree a one year gap between feeding users is a bit extreme.

 

Pete

 

The developer should consider letting all the customers join the beta program. For those that like constant updates is a good thing and for those that rather wait, well they can just wait for the new yearly update.

 

I am considering one of these ATC programs. I downloaded the PF3 demo and it is very realistic. The only part of flying that I could not simulate was being cleared for STAR. It never mentions the STAR and it only vectors me. I tried setting it up and maybe in fact it does cleared you for a STAR but I couldn't make it work.

 

 

I am considering one of these ATC programs. I downloaded the PF3 demo and it is very realistic. The only part of flying that I could not simulate was being cleared for STAR. It never mentions the STAR and it only vectors me. I tried setting it up and maybe in fact it does cleared you for a STAR but I couldn't make it work.

 

It certainly does clear you for a STAR. For example

22/09/2016 16:08:53: 170 - Transcript: 'Speedbird 2578 Heavy continue via the Victor Echo Romeo Oscar Bravo 1 Alpha Approach   Remain on this frequency, I'll have traffic for you.  '

 

Except it is rather too good at asigning the wrong SIDs and STARs

 

Odd, I've never had such a problem.

 

Pete

 

 

It certainly does clear you for a STAR. For example

22/09/2016 16:08:53: 170 - Transcript: 'Speedbird 2578 Heavy continue via the Victor Echo Romeo Oscar Bravo 1 Alpha Approach   Remain on this frequency, I'll have traffic for you.  '

 

Except it's not really a STAR it's a point in your flight plan  that you name as if it was, where past that point PF3 won't care how you fly it. The same way RC4 does it, except in RC4 you have to request it in flight. 

Odd, I've never had such a problem.

 

Pete

Well, Pete for example LIPZ-->LOWI

if you are not given the ROKIB6J SID at LIPZ and the BRENO2A STAR at LOWI then it's wrong.

Except it's not really a STAR it's a point in your flight plan  that you name as if it was, where past that point PF3 won't care how you fly it. The same way RC4 does it, except in RC4 you have to request it in flight. 

PF3 allows you to fly the STAR without hindrance because that's what would normally happen unless ATC intervene. So until PF3 has that added feature it is a STAR. STARs MUST be flown as published unless ATC say otherwise. So it is a STAR.

I think Bob Scott's post #33  is interesting regarding his comments on how PATC does handle Sids and Stars.

 

And maybe the developer trying to make PATC a Swiss knife was nearly it's downfall. Development of a flight planner should have been set aside, and instead a proper voice and call sign implementation instead. IMHO

 

 

Development of a flight planner should have been set aside, and instead a proper voice and call sign implementation instead. IMHO

 

And therein lies the problem, IMHO, with ALL the ATC programs. They all want to be a flight planner, inserting SID's & STARs' etc. As far as I am concerned, let the planning program create the plan. Import the plan into the ATC program and fly it or let the "co pilot" handle it. All the ATC program needs to do is give clearances, etc.

 

I HAVE a moving map program, I HAVE a flight planner - I don't need another one. 

 

Sometimes simpler is better, IMHO.

 

 

Vic

And therein lies the problem, IMHO, with ALL the ATC programs. They all want to be a flight planner, inserting SID's & STARs' etc. As far as I am concerned, let the planning program create the plan. Import the plan into the ATC program and fly it or let the "co pilot" handle it. All the ATC program needs to do is give clearances, etc.

 

I HAVE a moving map program, I HAVE a flight planner - I don't need another one. 

 

Sometimes simpler is better, IMHO.

 

 

Vic

Yeah, I noticed that ProATC regularly deviates from the SIDs or STARs that PFPX allocated, but I usually just roll with it. I take it to be a change in plan like you might have in real life.

And therein lies the problem, IMHO, with ALL the ATC programs. They all want to be a flight planner, inserting SID's & STARs' etc. As far as I am concerned, let the planning program create the plan. Import the plan into the ATC program and fly it or let the "co pilot" handle it. All the ATC program needs to do is give clearances, etc.

 

I HAVE a moving map program, I HAVE a flight planner - I don't need another one. 

 

Sometimes simpler is better, IMHO.

 

 

Vic

 

 

That is one reason I easily moved to PF3. I now create my own flight plans using mostly Skyvector and Plan G, and then select them with PF3. After a few tries, it is beyond simple, and works for both IFR and VFR.