I also switched from RC4 to PF3...the biggest advantages are the P3D support, regular updates and the huge amount of voices. When I fly offline (without PE ATC) I use 70% airline traffic with UT II and you really get nice radio chatters with PF3. Without an external traffic program however it gets pretty silent. Vectoring is ok in PF3, sometimes the controllers leave me to high for the approach but I guess that is my fault and needs better preparation of the flight plan.

Yes, there are many options to play with in PF3, but you do not need them all the time. There is actually no need to name the SIDs and STARS, just use the generic names. Like in RC4, you can alter frequencies for ATIS etc and add new ones, but in PF3 they are stored in the database. And finally, you can also "file" VFR flight plans and ask for flight following, however, this feature is quite basic and does not include airspace guidance like Charlie airspace clearance.

So, all in all: I can recommend the change to PF3, but it takes some time and playing around with the program until you will be satisfied with the results. my advice: make a hard copy of the key commands (there is no onscreen menu like in RC4) and read the posts on the PF3 forum. And strictly follow your flight plan, otherwise the flight can easily and up in a mess and cause frustration.

4 hours ago, specialist said:

I was looking at a few videos showing PF3, and noticed you don't use your own voice to speak to ATC, is that correct? 

You can use your own voice to communicate with PF3-ATC if you use Multi Crew Experience. 

16 hours ago, Boomer said:

Hmm, my RC4 tends to CTD with P3D, apparently a known issue.

I have tried the PF3 demo and it seems to have issues with vectoring at FAF etc, which RC handles fine.

RC4 does not CTD in P3D, I have never heard anyone mention RC4 crashing in all the years I have been using it, searched the RC4 forum and not one mention of CTD in all these years, where did you hear that it crashes ?

I have both. PF3 is far superior to rc4 as long as you take time to set flight up properly enter sids and stars ect. Voices are great

Folks,

 

Does PF3 has an ability to resume a saved flight concurrently like RC4 and PATC do? 

3 hours ago, Glynn said:

RC4 does not CTD in P3D, I have never heard anyone mention RC4 crashing in all the years I have been using it, searched the RC4 forum and not one mention of CTD in all these years, where did you hear that it crashes ?

Hi Folks,

Concur - been rock steady for me...

*** For those who may be unaware - try the "Meatwater" mods for RC4 in the lib - they greatly improve the experience for me.

Regards,
Scott

59 minutes ago, scottb613 said:

Hi Folks,

Concur - been rock steady for me...

*** For those who may be unaware - try the "Meatwater" mods for RC4 in the lib - they greatly improve the experience for me.

Regards,
Scott

What does the "Meatwater" mods do for RC4?

1 minute ago, specialist said:

What does the "Meatwater" mods do for RC4?

They enhance the voices.

Hi Johnny,

"Meatwater" he's a sound engineer - he bulk processed all the WAV's to clean them up, remove dead space, and to add some noise to make it sound more radio like - in my book - greatly improving the experience - I couldn't go back to using RC4 without it - your mileage may vary...

Regards,
Scott

2 hours ago, G-YMML1 said:

Folks,

 

Does PF3 has an ability to resume a saved flight concurrently like RC4 and PATC do? 

Yes, that was implemented in the latest version. You can always resume your latest flight (if also saved/autosaved in the sim) - as long as you do not start a different flight with PF3.

 

11 hours ago, LDP1949 said:

Two questions:

1.) How does Pilot2ATC v2 deal with GA, VFR/IFR and un-controlled airports?

2.) How easily did you adjust and how easy is it to set up the voice recognition software/stuff?

You should check their forum and the demo. I only flight IFR but I have seen the question about VFR and uncontrolled airports answered. It seems to work, but never tried myself since I do not know how to flight VFR. Have in mind it is in active development and new features are added almost every month, so take old posts with a grain of salt.

The only issue I had with voice recognition was finding the correct level for the mic, but I haven't adjust it again for over a year after finding the right spot.

Once you get familiar with the correct phraseology it just works. But it does have a learning curve. I only use two microsoft voices (W10) but it doesn't bother me. Heck in Pilotedge you may get the same person controlling all freqs in your flight.

 

Just reinstalled RC4 - I am currently using PF3 - and compared a flight using both programs. I chose a short IFR hop from Auburne (KAUN) to Oakland International (KOAK), the route is KAUN SAC SUNOL KOAK at 6000 ft with a Cessna 310, with landing on RW 28R on the ILS 28R approach. I chose this route because I flew it several times with Pilotedge professional ATC and there are also many recorded RW flights from pilot Jerry W. on youtube with his Twin Cessna. Therefore, I can easily compare the behavior of both products to real world ATC.
Weather and time setting was equal, as was the AI traffic (UT II, 70% Airliner and 30%GA)

1. Clearance:
   Since KAUN is a non towered airport, in RW you need to either depart VFR and pick up IFR clearance in the air, or you call FSS on the phone when on the ground. RC4 simulates the phone call pretty well, you even hear the phone dialing...after approval of the route I  was cleared for departure "if not off by..." - which is quite realistic and matches RW as well as PilotEdge ATC. I got my Squawk code and the Departure frequency (RW frequency, entered manually during flight preparations).
   
   In PF3, you need to contact FSS on the radio, using either a default frequency (122.2 I believe) or the one which is in the PF3 database and can be modified by the user. I received a clearance to 4000ft and the departure frequency which I needed to contact when in the air to receive the Squawk code. The DEP frequencies used by PF3 are generic ones, but I believe they can be changed somewhere in a text file.
    
2. Departure:
   On both programs you can dial in UNICOM and report takeoff from runway xx. After take off, I switched to DEP: PF3 gave me a Squawk code, but I did not receive a final "Radar contact...". I also had to stay at 4000ft all the way to final vectors. After some initial heading, I was cleared for "own navigation", but had to stay at 4000, while I filed 6000 (maybe too much traffic..?).
   RC4 DEP took me over after take off at 3000 ft and vectored me nearly all the way to the first waypoint SAC VOR at 6000 ft, then I was cleared for "own navigation". This not 100% realistic, since in RW and PE you are on your own after 3 minutes or less.
    
3. Cruise:
   Nothing special here to tell. some frequency changes on the route..again PF3 uses generic frequencies while RC4 takes the frequencies from the P3D database (which are mostly outdated by the way).
   RC4 handed me over to Oakland center which is not happening in RW at 6000 ft, while in PF3 I stayed at DEP/APP all the time which is correct, with 2 hand overs I believe. Radio chatter with AI aircraft was more intense and more immersive with PF3.
    
4. Vectors to the ILS approach RW 28R for KOAK:
   RC4 started vectoring already before my last waypoint SUNOL, which is realistic and happens both in RW and in PilotEdge. However, I was vectored directly to the airport, and around 10 miles away vectored to downwind for 5 minutes, than a 90° turn and a 45° turn to final approach course. At little bit complicated and does not match real world instructions, but it worked without problems and I landed safely. However, initial vectors led me over Mount Diablo, which is I believe 3500 ft high, and has some antennas (obstacles) to which I came pretty close...no ground prox. warnings on Foreflight though, so I guess it was save. In PE and RW, you usually get vectored left of Mount Diablo.
   
   In PF3, I had to fly the filed route until I reached my last waypoint SUNOL (not realistic, both in PE and RW you receive vectors before reaching SUNOL). Shortly before reaching SUNOL, I received vectors to the ILS approach without any further zig/zag vectoring, which was similar to my experience in PE (PilotEdge). 
    
5. Landing:
   No big difference here between the 2 programs. I propose to change settings in RC4 and PF3 to allow only one runway for landing, the one which is used in RW. In Oakland, this is in 99% of all cases RW 28R for GA airplanes. In RC4 you can easily select the preferred runway from a dropdown menu before you start your flight, in PF3 you need to change settings before loading a flight plan, and it is a bit more complicated: you need to mark all runways which should not be used with an "X".
    

So, my final remarks: Bot programs have their pro´s and con´s...I will use both of them from time to time when not flying online on PE, which has by far the biggest immersion factor of course 

Thomas

 

 

Good synopsis, Tom, on your comparison between those two programs. I guess what I got out of it was, go with PilotsEdge! lol

8 minutes ago, specialist said:

I guess what I got out of it was, go with PilotsEdge

Yes, definitely! You never get the same heart beat on artificial ATC 

21 minutes ago, allergiecheck said:

1. Vectors to the ILS approach RW 28R for KOAK:
   In PF3, I had to fly the filed route until I reached my last waypoint SUNOL (not realistic, both in PE and RW you receive vectors before reaching SUNOL). Shortly before reaching SUNOL, I received vectors to the ILS approach without any further zig/zag vectoring, which was similar to my experience in PE (PilotEdge). 

 

PF3 always starts vectoring after the last waypoint of the flight plan loaded into PF3 (unless vectoring is disabled by the STAR-option).

So if you want to be vectored before the last waypoint that waypoint should be excluded from the flightplan loaded into PF3 (which only makes sense if the last but one waypoint is not too far away from the last waypoint of course).