Development of a flight planner should have been set aside

 

This is history now. The planner was well-developed two years ago when I first saw ProATC/X. I don't think any time at all has been spent on that since then. It's all been on the procedures. I think some parts are quite tricky -- notably for instance the differences between European and USA practice regarding SIDs and STARs (particularly the latter). It is that which tripped up RCV5.

 

I think folks will be really impressed at the progress since the last user release. I am really looking forward to the next release which cannot be far away now.

 

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.

 

Is that all? Well, so easy, eh? I'm surprised there aren't ATC programs flooding the market! 

 

I've never used ProATC/X as a planner. My plans are always imported. Mostly I've found that if a different SID or STAR is assigned to that which PFPX recommended, it is due to some small change or discrepancy -- like the AI traffic using a different runway in light winds. Mostly they do agree, but even if not, I've certainly never found anything wrong with ProATC/X's choices of late.

 

Anyway, to each his own. All I can say is that I do enjoy using ProATC/X more than I did RCV4, even though I did stick to the latter for many years. Perhaps ProATC/X's methods more meet my needs and expectations.

 

Pete

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. 

 

Kind of, let's say, "interesting" that you were one of the main supporters of Pro-ATC/X not long ago. Now promoting a different program. But hey. People change opinions. Still a bit strange for me at least. Nevertheless, enjoy your flying with PF3...

Kind of, let's say, "interesting" that you were one of the main supporters of Pro-ATC/X not long ago. Now promoting a different program. But hey. People change opinions. Still a bit strange for me at least. Nevertheless, enjoy your flying with PF3...

 

For many years I flew tubeliners, but my PPL was in single engine aircraft. I went back to the three A2A aircraft I have about a month ago, and realized that I was doing much more flying with these GA aircraft rather than sitting and staring at the FMC doing doing the flying in the NGX. My next move was seeing which ATC fitted more with this type of flying, having tried every one that has been available for the last decade, and I was really impressed with the immersion factor of PF3 once I tried the demo, and purchased it a few days later. Now that is all I fly. Right at this moment  flying a Cherokee from John Wayne to Lake Havasu City with PF3 as my ATC... 

 

If I had kept flying tubeliners, I probably would have stayed with Pro ATC which is an excellent program by the way. I have to admit I have grown to love the 140 different controllers voice available with PF3. I think the updated version of PATC , when released, will make many users of the program very happy. 

..... I have to admit I have grown to love the 140 different controllers voice available with PF3. I think the updated version of PATC , when released, will make many users of the program very happy.

PATC can have as many voicesets if the developer "encourages" users make them either thru his resources & / or those of http://mavecreations.weebly.com/voices-for-proatcx.html.

PATC can have as many voicesets if the developer "encourages" users make them either thru his resources & / or those of http://mavecreations.weebly.com/voices-for-proatcx.html.

 

Will be a long time I am afraid, to get that many voice sets done. Been years and there are only a few made, BTW mine is one of them. 

PATC can have as many voicesets if the developer "encourages" users make them either thru his resources & / or those of http://mavecreations.weebly.com/voices-for-proatcx.html.

That was part of PATC's problem. The developer opened up voice pack development to the public, providing a utility to do it, and upload to share it (Which is no longer active). Sounds good on paper, but in practice quality control went right out the window, especially when it came to vocalizing airline call signs, which resulted in major inconsistencies between voice packs. For example the call sign Delta, one voice may do it correctly, another may say Delta Airlines, and another it may be DAL (or Delta-Alpha-Lima if you have the phonetics option set.) I hope any new voices are created in a more controlled environment  and properly quality checked.

For many years I flew tubeliners, but my PPL was in single engine aircraft. I went back to the three A2A aircraft I have about a month ago, and realized that I was doing much more flying with these GA aircraft rather than sitting and staring at the FMC doing doing the flying in the NGX. My next move was seeing which ATC fitted more with this type of flying, having tried every one that has been available for the last decade, and I was really impressed with the immersion factor of PF3 once I tried the demo, and purchased it a few days later. Now that is all I fly. Right at this moment  flying a Cherokee from John Wayne to Lake Havasu City with PF3 as my ATC... 

 

If I had kept flying tubeliners, I probably would have stayed with Pro ATC which is an excellent program by the way. I have to admit I have grown to love the 140 different controllers voice available with PF3. I think the updated version of PATC , when released, will make many users of the program very happy. 

 

Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. To me it sounded a bit as if you don't like PATC anymore. But now I understand why you switched. I mostly fly tubes and I'm pretty happy with PATC and am looking very much forward to the imminent update.

Kind of, let's say, "interesting" that you were one of the main supporters of Pro-ATC/X not long ago. Now promoting a different program. But hey. People change opinions. Still a bit strange for me at least. Nevertheless, enjoy your flying with PF3...

People are allowed to change their opinions you know! I think PF3 is a better programme too. It is fully ICAO compliant which Proatc is not. It works extremely well in both ICAO and FAA enviroments. Both IFR and VFR functions are fully supported. It's not a flight planning programme nor should it be. Also one of its advantages is its flexibility to allow the user to configure it exactly to their way of flying.

People are allowed to change their opinions you know! I think PF3 is a better programme too. It is fully ICAO compliant which Proatc is not. It works extremely well in both ICAO and FAA environments. Both IFR and VFR functions are fully supported. It's not a flight planning programme nor should it be. Also one of its advantages is its flexibility to allow the user to configure it exactly to their way of flying.

 

The two things that make me want to fly with PF3 only now is the immersion which I did not sense  with PATC, and the flexibility compared to the way PATC works. Feels to me like flying with ATC  in the real world. Had they not had a free demo, I doubt if I would have ever tried it. 

The two things that make me want to fly with PF3 only now is the immersion which I did not sense  with PATC, and the flexibility compared to the way PATC works. Feels to me like flying with ATC  in the real world. Had they not had a free demo, I doubt if I would have ever tried it.

 

Bob is the reason I bought PF3. When a real pilot says something is close to being real I take note. Been using pf3 for a couple months now and I like it. The support is great.

Agree also from Bob's comments I just tried the PF3 demo version and VFR flight is very immersive just like I remember ATC getting my PPL.

 

 

Is that all? Well, so easy, eh? I'm surprised there aren't ATC programs flooding the market! 

 

I did not say it was easy Pete - nor is it easy for the user who may be unfamiliar with ATC procedures - my complaint is that the dev's make it more difficult by including all the extraneous stuff in the program. Sometimes LESS is better. As I said, if I want a flight planner, I'll purchase a flight planner.

 

My other complaint about various ATC programs is that they do not provide an easy way to assign sound output to a headset. That was my main complaint with RC4. 

 

Vic

my complaint is that the dev's make it more difficult by including all the extraneous stuff in the program. Sometimes LESS is better. As I said, if I want a flight planner, I'll purchase a flight planner.

 

Yes, but that planner hasn't really been touched by the Dev for about two years, as I said. Virtually all of the work has been on procedures. The planner was what he started with really, and probably actually the easiest part.

 

My other complaint about various ATC programs is that they do not provide an easy way to assign sound output to a headset. That was my main complaint with RC4. 

 

 

 

Yes, agreed. There are ways around that, of course. For instance load up FS with the default sound then change the default and load up the ATC program. Or vice versa -- either way might work, depending when the ATC program opens the sound device. I used to have a little batch program to do this.

 

But nowadays I run ATC and other such things on a Networked PC.  The sound goes either to my headset or to the overhead speakers -- there's a switch on the overhead which uses a program to swap devices. Certain cockpit sounds from that client always come from the overhead (courtesy originally of pmSounds, but nowr ProSim's sound facilities. Altogether I have three PCs providing sound in different parts of the cockpit.

 

And of course I divert the ATC menu (whether RCV4 or ProATC/X) to a smally screen in the cockpit, next to a WideClient touch buttonscreen. The GSX menu is handled similarly.

 

Enjoy PF3. I do have it and started to try it once, but to me it still looks too much like that ProFlight Emulator built onto another base. I know it's been extensively revised since then, but it still seems too complicated for me. And as I only fly 737-800 (that's what my cockpit represents after all) ProATC suite me better. I must admit I'm very jealous of those many voice sets though! ;-)

 

Pete

Enjoy PF3. I do have it and started to try it once, but to me it still looks too much like that ProFlight Emulator built onto another base. I know it's been extensively revised since then, but it still seems too complicated for me. And as I only fly 737-800 (that's what my cockpit represents after all) ProATC suite me better. I must admit I'm very jealous of those many voice sets though! ;-)

 

Pete

I would say Pete that PF3 is a lot less complicated than PFE for example. Any complexity is really in the huge amount of options it allows. If I may say it is less complex than FSUIPC!! There is a massive update coming out iminently that addresses some long term issues and adding yet more new features.

I would say Pete that PF3 is a lot less complicated than PFE for example. Any complexity is really in the huge amount of options it allows. If I may say it is less complex than FSUIPC!! There is a massive update coming out iminently that addresses some long term issues and adding yet more new features.

 

I find PF3 much easier to learn that was PATC.