PF3 or Radar Contact?

[Ray Proudfoot 8,945]

5 hours ago, vololiberista said:

We're happy that you're happy. But even Ray Proudfoot would admit that without ever being updated RC4 has had its day.

No, I don't agree. I'd love to know what is outdated because people use that term but don't go on to say what aspect is outdated.

Some of the call signs are probably out of date I agree. But are the two competitor's call signs up to date? And also remember RC4 handles FAA and ICAO terminology. The last time I heard ProATC-X it didn't. The terminology seemed almost made up and didn't follow any known standards.

You feed RC4 a flight plan with or without SIDs and STARs included and can fly your route as you wish right up to 40nm out when you are handed over to APP. But even then you can request to fly your own approach and you're left alone until 7nm out when you contact TWR.

I fly Concorde almost exclusively these days and have found a really useful workaround to turn off the altitude watchdog. I asked if PF3 and ProATC-X could do this and neither could. That's a deal-breaker for me hence why I stay with RC4.

I need  the altitude watchdog off because if RC4 detects your climb rate is less than 200fpm it chastises you. Climb rates high up with Concorde were perhaps only 50fpm but if you choose 9 then 3 (Turbulence) it turns off the watchdog and you're left alone until the descend procedure starts at which point you can turn Turbulence off and the watchdog is active again.

Still plenty of life left in RC4 for me.

[RALF9636 1,951]

44 minutes ago, ThomasAH said:

I can only guess that this originates from the original PF2000 (PF3's grandparent). It has benefits (not needing the on-screen menu) and drawbacks (not having the on-screen menu, and therefore having to remember the hotkeys, or use the external tool PF3_Displayer, or have some other way (PDF, text file, printed) to look them up).

...or use Multi Crew Experience and control everything via voice (Multi Crew Experience sends the appropriate hotkey to PF3 according to what you have said).

[scottb613 1,188]

Hi Folks,

Yeah - I'm still a fan of RC4, use it on every IFR flight, and fly in the system in real life... I'm waiting for an ATC package to provide true traffic separation - - -  the holy grail - - - is it really impossible in Flight Sim ? I'm really surprised after all these years and the numerous products released - it's never been attempted... The first company that pulls that off will get my money...

Regards,

Scott

[ThomasAH 61]

I guess ATC add-ons are a niche of a niche, and I'm impressed about what all of these competing products here have accomplished.

[vololiberista 205]

On 16/04/2017 at 7:14 PM, ThomasAH said:

I can only guess that this originates from the original PF2000 (PF3's grandparent). It has benefits (not needing the on-screen menu) and drawbacks (not having the on-screen menu, and therefore having to remember the hotkeys, or use the external tool PF3_Displayer, or have some other way (PDF, text file, printed) to look them up).

Remember that "not having the on screen menu" is as real as it gets!!

[vololiberista 205]

On 16/04/2017 at 8:15 PM, scottb613 said:

Hi Folks,

Yeah - I'm still a fan of RC4, use it on every IFR flight, and fly in the system in real life... I'm waiting for an ATC package to provide true traffic separation - - -  the holy grail - - - is it really impossible in Flight Sim ? I'm really surprised after all these years and the numerous products released - it's never been attempted... The first company that pulls that off will get my money...

Regards,

Scott

There is AI controller.

[vololiberista 205]

On 16/04/2017 at 7:41 PM, Ray Proudfoot said:

No, I don't agree. I'd love to know what is outdated because people use that term but don't go on to say what aspect is outdated.

Some of the call signs are probably out of date I agree. But are the two competitor's call signs up to date? And also remember RC4 handles FAA and ICAO terminology. The last time I heard ProATC-X it didn't. The terminology seemed almost made up and didn't follow any known standards.

You feed RC4 a flight plan with or without SIDs and STARs included and can fly your route as you wish right up to 40nm out when you are handed over to APP. But even then you can request to fly your own approach and you're left alone until 7nm out when you contact TWR.

I fly Concorde almost exclusively these days and have found a really useful workaround to turn off the altitude watchdog. I asked if PF3 and ProATC-X could do this and neither could. That's a deal-breaker for me hence why I stay with RC4.

I need  the altitude watchdog off because if RC4 detects your climb rate is less than 200fpm it chastises you. Climb rates high up with Concorde were perhaps only 50fpm but if you choose 9 then 3 (Turbulence) it turns off the watchdog and you're left alone until the descend procedure starts at which point you can turn Turbulence off and the watchdog is active again.

Still plenty of life left in RC4 for me.

You're correct with regard to Proatc. Its terminologly is not close to being correct. RC4 still has outdated calls though. For example "Taxi into position and hold." Long dead! PF3 has undergone a number of iterations since its inception so might work better with Concorde with the latest release.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,945]

2 minutes ago, vololiberista said:

You're correct with regard to Proatc. Its terminologly is not close to being correct. RC4 still has outdated calls though. For example "Taxi into position and hold." Long dead! PF3 has undergone a number of iterations since its inception so might work better with Concorde with the latest release.

There's a way to sort that out. Copying and renaming files will correct that problem. One day I'll get around to it.

I did ask the author of PF3 about the Concorde thing around a year ago and he said it's wasn't possible. I may enquire again but if I'm honest RC4 suits me so well it's hard to see me changing. In any case I would still want my Speedbird Concorde callsign and if no other packages supply that there's no chance of me switching.

[ThomasAH 61]

37 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I did ask the author of PF3 about the Concorde thing around a year ago and he said it's wasn't possible. I may enquire again but if I'm honest RC4 suits me so well it's hard to see me changing. In any case I would still want my Speedbird Concorde callsign and if no other packages supply that there's no chance of me switching.

The nag tolerance regarding altitude is now configurable in PF3, but it currently is not possible to change this during a flight.

But for the call sign ... a "bit" of copy&paste of the audio files for "Speedbird" and "Cordoba Control" (or "Contact" for the "Con" part) should do the trick :)

[Ray Proudfoot 8,945]

27 minutes ago, ThomasAH said:

The nag tolerance regarding altitude is now configurable in PF3, but it currently is not possible to change this during a flight.

But for the call sign ... a "bit" of copy&paste of the audio files for "Speedbird" and "Cordoba Control" (or "Contact" for the "Con" part) should do the trick :)

Concorde was unique in that for supersonic flights it filed FL600 as that was its ceiling. It only reached that altitude (and only briefly) on the Barbados run where the upper air was very cold. On the JFK run it averaged 540-570. But you always file 600. I'm assuming PF3 expects a minimum climb rate but it could be as low as 50fpm and I would expect to be chastised if I didn't eventually reach 600.

The callsign cut and paste doesn't sound like it would end up very satisfactory but thanks for suggesting it.

[vololiberista 205]

You could experiment by putting a very low climb rate into the aircraft profile in PF3 for Concorde.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,945]

8 hours ago, vololiberista said:

You could experiment by putting a very low climb rate into the aircraft profile in PF3 for Concorde.

Indeed but I'm not sure of the benefits of PF3 over RC4. Given I'm very satisfied with RC4 I can't see myself moving.

[MadDog 353]

On 4/16/2017 at 1:41 PM, Ray Proudfoot said:

And also remember RC4 handles FAA and ICAO terminology. The last time I heard ProATC-X it didn't. The terminology seemed almost made up and didn't follow any known standards.

I STRONGLY disagree.  When is the last time you heard ProATC/X ?  In last year's update, the phraseology was completely revamped and is now much more in line with real-world standards.  In truth, the existing terminology is now a meld of both FAA and ICAO communications (which really aren't that different anymore); but I would dare say that ProATC is now much more aligned with what you would hear in the real world when compared to RC4's 10 year old phraseology. Give the newer version of ProATC a try, you might be surprised.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,945]

1 hour ago, MadDog said:

I STRONGLY disagree.  When is the last time you heard ProATC/X ?  In last year's update, the phraseology was completely revamped and is now much more in line with real-world standards.  In truth, the existing terminology is now a meld of both FAA and ICAO communications (which really aren't that different anymore); but I would dare say that ProATC is now much more aligned with what you would hear in the real world when compared to RC4's 10 year old phraseology. Give the newer version of ProATC a try, you might be surprised.

About 6-9 months ago. But it was released around 4 years ago so it's nice it has finally got proper phraseology. I hope you only hear FAA in the US and ICAO in Europe.

Just became RC4 is 10 years old doesn't mean the phraseology is wrong. I'm aware that Taxi into position and hold is now Line up and wait but that can be corrected by the user. I'm not aware of anything else being out of date.

I might be tempted to try it if there was a time-limited demo but I'm not going to shell out close to fifty quid when I have a perfectly suitable program already.

I'll check it next time I visit my mate who does have it.

[vololiberista 205]

18 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

About 6-9 months ago. But it was released around 4 years ago so it's nice it has finally got proper phraseology. I hope you only hear FAA in the US and ICAO in Europe.

Just became RC4 is 10 years old doesn't mean the phraseology is wrong. I'm aware that Taxi into position and hold is now Line up and wait but that can be corrected by the user. I'm not aware of anything else being out of date.

I might be tempted to try it if there was a time-limited demo but I'm not going to shell out close to fifty quid when I have a perfectly suitable program already.

I'll check it next time I visit my mate who does have it.

There has just been an update to PF3. With a list of changes and additions as long as your ***** :-)

Having said that as soon as that update was released the beta team buried itself into another. These are not bugs they are additions, tweaks and wishlist items.