ATC for FS9?

[ThomasAH 61]

It doesn't matter where PF3 is installed, except that it should not be installed in C:\Program Files, C:\Program Files (x86) or C:\windows.

I have mine on D:\FSX\PF3 (and FSX in D:\FSX\FSX)

[GhiomKL 0]

Was the administrator thing.

thanks for your help

[vololiberista 205]

4 hours ago, ThomasAH said:

It doesn't matter where PF3 is installed, except that it should not be installed in C:\Program Files, C:\Program Files (x86) or C:\windows.

I have mine on D:\FSX\PF3 (and FSX in D:\FSX\FSX)

I have my PF3 as E:\PF3 and my FS9 on the F: drive

[wombat457 3]

2 hours ago, GhiomKL said:

Was the administrator thing.

thanks for your help

Glad John's advice worked and you got it sorted out.

[GhiomKL 0]

I have been a user of RCv4 for ages. I am considering a switch to PFE3. Any one can chime in to give their opinions of the pros and cons of each (excluding voices).

Thank you

Ghiom

[wombat457 3]

GhiomKL,

I have used both RCv4 as well as PF3.  As I intimated above, choosing software is a personal decision, what I (for example) like, you may not and visa versa so I am reluctant to advocate either programs.

What I will say is this, both are good programs depending on what you expect from them.  I like RC for its simplicity and proven stability from being around for years and it does what it does and was intended to do - provide ATC for FS.

I also like some elements of PF3, the taxi manager for example; although that is not something that would occur in the real world for every aircraft and for every taxi situations.  If you are trying to comply with ATC and don't know an airport, or have the Airport charts, or (like me) can't be bothered reading them it is very useful so long as PF3's Taxi Manager can be accurate and is capable of reading all installed airport layouts, something that is yet to be seen unless someone has every airport scenery ever created.

It is difficult to give an opinion and not include the speech/voices because, after all, that is what you are going to be listening to.  While I am yet to hear any realistic speech in any ATC or Cockpit type of program, I think the PF3 voices are (generally speaking) better than RC's.  Bear in mind though, RC was compiled some ten years or so ago using technology of that era so you would/should expect PF3's voices to be better, in fact, in some cases much better.

Bottom line is this, RC has been around for a long time and is, by all accounts, a proven, reliable and stable program where as PF3 is the new boy on the block and has no history, good or bad, to speak of as yet.

If you want an ATC program that works and are not concerned by robotic voices or the lack of "extra's" but provides consistent ATC, then I would stay with RC until PF3 attains a proven track record.  

If you are more concerned about voices and the nice additions that come with PF3 than what the program was designed to do - provide ATC, then you would like PF3.  I also prefer the way that PF3 creates its scenery data base over the way RC does it, PF3's is far more "idiot proof" than RC's.

At the end of the day, both programs do pretty much the same thing - provide added ATC for FS so the choice is yours and what you want, and what your expectations of an ATC Program are.

In conclusion, had I the opportunity to do a flight using the full version of PF3 prior to purchasing it, I probably wouldn't have bought it.  Not because it isn't a good program BUT because (other than the extra niceties) it still only does the same thing as RC and that is provide ATC.

Cheers,

wombat457

 

 

[GhiomKL 0]

Thanks a lot for this.

i am interested in PFE3 because it looks like it lets you fly SiD and STAR while RCv4 only SID.

i still fly STARs with RCV4 but I don't comply (exactly) to the ATC constraints which makes it unrealistic.

how is PFE3 from that standpoint?

[wombat457 3]

The short answer is I don't know, I have not flown a SID's or STAR's flight plan with it and I rarely do as none of them (ATC add ons) seem to be all that realistic and, in reality, offer nothing that I can't fly on my own without the aid of an ATC program.

As you probably know, SID's and STAR's are standard routes to go from departure to your en route/as filed plan and from en route to approach and each airport that accommodates SID's and STAR's has those standardized routes.  As such, all you need to know (essentially) are the way points, altitudes and speeds for those way points to use them, at least in simple terms.

So, if your flying priority is the use of SID's and STAR's incorporated flight plans I would suggest you stick with RC and get hold of FSC and use that to negotiate your flights in so far as SID's and STAR's are concerned.  In short, I wouldn't rely on or use any ATC program for them.  From my perspective, if flying with a SID's and STAR's FP, I do my clearance and ground work with ATC, turn it off, fly the SID's then turn ATC back on for the en route then off again for the STAR's etc, and I don't know of any ATC program that can do that.

Your other option of course is to fly on VATSIM and just hope you don't get a 12 year old controller :)

cheers,

wombat457

[wombat457 3]

Just out of curiosity, you say you fly STAR's with RC but don't comply with ATC (exactly) which does make flying the STAR unrealistic in so far as RC is concerned. As such, why spend 35 pound ($44 US) for another program just so you can fly SID's if you are likely not to comply with what ATC instructs for the SID anyway? 

I am not being judgmental toward or critical of the way you fly, I just don't see the point in wasting money for something that I am not going to utilise properly.  It also makes me lean more toward spending that money on FSC and doing what you do now, flying the SID and STAR the way you want to without ATC getting all bent out of shape like RC does.

Cheers,

wombat457

[GhiomKL 0]

In fact, just tried it, did not like it, deleted it. back to RCv4.

thanks for the feedback.

[wombat457 3]

No problem and I thought, from what you said, that may have been the result.

Cheers,

wombat457

[John Hinson 22]

5 hours ago, wombat457 said:

It is difficult to give an opinion and not include the speech/voices because, after all, that is what you are going to be listening to.  While I am yet to hear any realistic speech in any ATC or Cockpit type of program, I think the PF3 voices are (generally speaking) better than RC's.  Bear in mind though, RC was compiled some ten years or so ago using technology of that era so you would/should expect PF3's voices to be better, in fact, in some cases much better.

Bottom line is this, RC has been around for a long time and is, by all accounts, a proven, reliable and stable program where as PF3 is the new boy on the block and has no history, good or bad, to speak of as yet.

If you want an ATC program that works and are not concerned by robotic voices or the lack of "extra's" but provides consistent ATC, then I would stay with RC until PF3 attains a proven track record. 

Just a small point - PF3 is really a new version rather than a new product, PFE preceded it. PFE had certainly been around a while (and, I suspect, something before that) so I suspect it is every bit as old as Radar Contact if not older in origin.

This is demonstrated by the voice files which have been carried over from PFE. For this reason (and it might frustrate some users) many modern call-signs are missing whilst older ones, like "ANSETT" (ceased ops 2002) are there. (As RC is also quite old, it is probable that a similar situation exists with the callsigns there.)

Oh . . . and I did hear that asthmatic Irishman in PF3 the other day and he still sounds as if he has run all the way up the tower stairs to answer your call!

Best regards,

John

[edetroit 933]

 One can update def ATC to one's hearts content. callsigns, approaches etc etc.... jus' sayin'. 

[John Hinson 22]

2 hours ago, edetroit said:

 One can update def ATC to one's hearts content. callsigns, approaches etc etc.... jus' sayin'. 

As you can for PF3, it just takes a little more time to edit so many voices.

In the past I also successfully edited some RC voices, can't speak for approaches though.

So its really a case of what you want to put into it to get what you want out of it. Each to one's own.

Best regards,

John

[vololiberista 205]

On 17/03/2017 at 8:22 AM, John Hinson said:

Just a small point - PF3 is really a new version rather than a new product, PFE preceded it. PFE had certainly been around a while (and, I suspect, something before that) so I suspect it is every bit as old as Radar Contact if not older in origin.

This is demonstrated by the voice files which have been carried over from PFE. For this reason (and it might frustrate some users) many modern call-signs are missing whilst older ones, like "ANSETT" (ceased ops 2002) are there. (As RC is also quite old, it is probable that a similar situation exists with the callsigns there.)

Oh . . . and I did hear that asthmatic Irishman in PF3 the other day and he still sounds as if he has run all the way up the tower stairs to answer your call!

Best regards,

John

PFE was an add-on if you will to PF2000 to make it work better. It required PF2000 so was initially complex to set-up until one knew what to do. PF3 looks similar in many ways to PFE but it is a distinct programme in that it was completely re-written. Some systems and functions appear to be the same as PFE because "they work." That's not to say that sometimes one comes across bugs. EVERY programme has release bugs. It's on what happens thereafter. Does one have to wait a year or more for a possible update or read empty promises all the time. Not with PF3. There is a major update in the wings being tested by us right now which addresses many of the problems highlighted on the PF3 forum. Plus a few new things. We're looking at how to code for information regions to which one tunes when VFR/IFR below transition altiudes.

RC4 works yes, but it is severely out of date and will never be updated. And btw PF3 has a huge number of extra voices compared to PFE 119 at last count. So whilst the "irishman" can still be heard he is now lost in the crowd.