fsx-ms PROATCX-v1850 new version anyone test it yet

[Jarkko 59]

Pilot uses call sign "New Zealand" and that is fine, but some controllers say "A--N--ZEEEE"

 

This usually means that the callsign is missing from the voice set. If you don't' like "A-N-Z", then you can configure ATC (under options) to say "Alpha-November-Zulu" if that makes things any better.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

In a word, "Yes" !  Radar Contact was a great program for its time... but the latest ATC offerings have relegated it to the history books.

 

One question I would like answering please. When flying Concorde it is cleared to FL600 but rarely reached that altitude except in tropical areas where the troposphere is cold enough. That wasn't a problem in the real world as it had airspace to itself once above FL420.

 

RC4 requires you to maintain a climb rate of at least 200fpm. If that isn't achievable (because of weight / temperature issues) there is an option in RC4 to turn off the vertical 'watchdog'. No more nagging about not achieving your assigned FL.

 

Has ProATC-X a similar vertical watchdog that can be disabled when required?

[MadDog 353]

Hi Ray,

 

I have to be honest, I don't own the Concorde - so I've never had a chance to test the situation you describe in ProATC/X.  By default, ProATC/X does a whole lot less nagging than RC4 (maybe even too little nagging for some users' tastes).  Personally, I felt RC4 could get pretty annoying with all of its complaining... especially with frequency changes.  What climb rate can the Concorde maintain at those altitudes?  Maybe I could simulate the slow climb at lower altitudes and let you know.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

Thanks MD. It's easy to test this without Concorde. Just request a FL and then set your climb rate to 50fpm. I'm guessing you'll be nagged. Try also levelling out for a short while and see how the Controller handles that.

 

I did experience a much earlier version of PROATC-X and it didn't monitor your climb rate. I wonder if that's been remidied.

 

Incidentally those frequency changes were all legit as you are passed to different controllers as you climb or descend. That's how it happens in the r/w so should be replicated in any serious ATC program.

[Jarkko 59]

 

 

Incidentally those frequency changes were all legit as you are passed to different controllers as you climb or descend. That's how it happens in the r/w so should be replicated in any serious ATC program.

 

At the current moment, the percentage of the real world IFR flights conducted by a Concorde is around 0%. This is why I have to say I disagree. Nice to have: yes, must have: not in my opinion.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

At the current moment, the percentage of the real world IFR flights conducted by a Concorde is around 0%. This is why I have to say I disagree. Nice to have: yes, must have: not in my opinion.

These are general rules for all aircraft so sorry but they do apply. ARTCC has several classes of airspace. This is necessary so aircraft at FL330 don't hear instructions for those thousands of feet lower and vice-versa.

 

I imagine PROATC-X employs such a system.

[Jarkko 59]

 

 

I imagine PROATC-X employs such a system.

 

ATC program handling IFR flight should be aware of the SIDs/STARs/approaches/transitions available at a given airport. ATC should also be able to know taxiways available at a given airport.

 

I imagine RC4 employs such a system.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

ATC program handling IFR flight should be aware of the SIDs/STARs/approaches/transitions available at a given airport. ATC should also be able to know taxiways available at a given airport.

 

I imagine RC4 employs such a system.

 

I'm not going to get into an argument with you about the merits of each ATC program. I was simply responding to MD's comment about RC instructing pilots to contact multiple centres. If ProATC-X doesn't do that then fine.

 

I know ProATC-X issues taxi instructions and SID/STAR instructions which RC4 didn't do. That was planned for v5 which was cancelled due to the author's personal circumstances changing.

[Jarkko 59]

 

 

That was planned for v5 which was cancelled due to the author's personal circumstances changing.

 

Family always comes first, there is no doubt about that. I don't think anyone would have done things the other way around.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

Family always comes first, there is no doubt about that. I don't think anyone would have done things the other way around.

 

Agreed.

[MadDog 353]

Incidentally those frequency changes were all legit as you are passed to different controllers as you climb or descend. That's how it happens in the r/w so should be replicated in any serious ATC program.

Ray,

 

Sorry, I should have been more clear.  I wasn't complaining about the number of frequency changes with RC4 (as you said, that's perfectly legit).  I was complaining about the short amount of time that RC4 gives you to change frequencies and check in with the next controller... anything more than like 20 secs, and it starts squawkin'... not very realistic (especially considering you shouldn't even be able to hear the controller when you're "between frequencies").

 

I'll try ProATC tonight with a 50 fpm climb rate and let you know what happens.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

Thanks MD. The key to getting more time is not to acknowledge the instruction immediately. I dial the new frequency on the standby side and then acknowledge. Or just hand comms over to Otto. :wink:

 

Look forward to hearing how you get on.

[Griff 5]

I was finally able to make a flight last night using the new version and everything well went.  LEPA-EHAM (Aerosoft A320 and Aerosoft LEPA/EHAM scenery) and all phases of flight worked as advertised.  The only issue was the assignment of a gate upon landing at EHAM which I should have pre-selected when creating the flight plan.  The program assigned me a cargo gate after landing but I just ignored it.  Looking forward to future flights............

[MadDog 353]

Look forward to hearing how you get on.

 

 

Ray,

 

I did a test flight last night with a slow climb (50-100 fpm) from FL60 to FL120.  ProATC provided a "gentle" reminder of my assigned altitude about every 2 or 3 minutes.  The flight was too short for me to determine what target rate ProATC/X was looking for; but think it's going to be around 200 fpm.  I'm thinking your perfect solution may be to continue using RC4 with the Concorde; but to use ProATC/X for everything else  :wink: .  You may want to pay Pete a visit and give it a test run.

 

 

The only issue was the assignment of a gate upon landing at EHAM which I should have pre-selected when creating the flight plan.

 

Yea, I learned to do that early on... the auto-park kept sending me to the gas pump  :smile: .

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

Ray,

 

I did a test flight last night with a slow climb (50-100 fpm) from FL60 to FL120.  ProATC provided a "gentle" reminder of my assigned altitude about every 2 or 3 minutes.  The flight was too short for me to determine what target rate ProATC/X was looking for; but think it's going to be around 200 fpm.  I'm thinking your perfect solution may be to continue using RC4 with the Concorde; but to use ProATC/X for everything else  :wink: .  You may want to pay Pete a visit and give it a test run.

Thanks MD. So it does monitor your climb rate. A much earlier release didn't. Do you have an option for 'unable to hold altitude'? RC has one and I use that to turn off the climb watchdog. If PROATC-X has one then that could serve the same purpose.

 

I have experienced it down at Pete's but obviously not the latest release. I'll see if I can get a visit in before Christmas. Yes, using both would seem to be a solution but it's been a while since i flew slow aircraft. :Big Grin:  I've been bitten by the Mach 2 bug!