Whoever comes out with a proper ATC addon for P3D will make a ton of money. I am really surprised that no one have yet to even come close to RC4, everything else out there is pretty much garbage. 

39 minutes ago, Drumcode said:

Whoever comes out with a proper ATC addon for P3D will make a ton of money. I am really surprised that no one have yet to even come close to RC4, everything else out there is pretty much garbage. 

Seriously ? RC4 is good and used it for years. It is now really dated. To say the others are garbage is a bit over the top. They all have there strengths and weaknesses, as RC4 does. Honestly, don't take offense, but your comment was garbage.

43 minutes ago, Drumcode said:

Whoever comes out with a proper ATC addon for P3D will make a ton of money. I am really surprised that no one have yet to even come close to RC4, everything else out there is pretty much garbage. 

You  forgot  to add  in my  opinion

2 hours ago, Drumcode said:

Whoever comes out with a proper ATC addon for P3D will make a ton of money. I am really surprised that no one have yet to even come close to RC4, everything else out there is pretty much garbage. 

Strong language! RC4 is seriously out of date with all its procedures, is not at all good at ICAO, and repremands the user uneccesarily etc etc. It will never be updated. It is a dinosaur. So to say everything else is garbage is totally uninformed.

Clearly from the language you used I am sure that you personally will wish to continue using it for the rest of eternity and become fossilised yourself along with RC4. But don't insinuate that other ATC programmes are garbage when you have more than likely not even tried them.

To simulate ATC procedures is immensely complex. Notwithstanding voices etc. There will always be rough edges. But RC4 will never change those because it is dead. An ATC programme that is being continuously appraised, tweaked, wish listed, and updated is the only option.

 

 

Outdated or not... I still maintain, that RC4 is the easiest and most intuitive setup. You just select a flightplan and connect it and fly...
Now please don't take offense or fly off - this is just my humble opinion.

I fear, that some of us in here, aren't exactly objective regarding this topic...

Just now, Anders Gron said:

Outdated or not... I still maintain, that RC4 is the easiest and most intuitive setup. You just select a flightplan and connect it and fly...

That is precisely what PF3 does.

same with pro atc

That may be ...

... but I still think (personally!) that RC4 is easier to use. Again, it's my subjective opinion and I assume that people can accept that, without constantly trying to find counter positions to support their opinion.

3 hours ago, Anders Gron said:

Outdated or not... I still maintain, that RC4 is the easiest and most intuitive setup. You just select a flightplan and connect it and fly...
Now please don't take offense or fly off - this is just my humble opinion.

I fear, that some of us in here, aren't exactly objective regarding this topic...

I used RC4 since the day it was out, and at that time it was good. Now it is like going back to DOS 3.1 PATC and PF3 are much more like flying in the real ATC system. 

4 hours ago, Anders Gron said:

That may be ...

... but I still think (personally!) that RC4 is easier to use. Again, it's my subjective opinion and I assume that people can accept that, without constantly trying to find counter positions to support their opinion.

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

6 hours ago, Anders Gron said:

That may be ...

... but I still think (personally!) that RC4 is easier to use. Again, it's my subjective opinion and I assume that people can accept that, without constantly trying to find counter positions to support their opinion.

+1 Anders!

3 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

I used RC4 since the day it was out, and at that time it was good. Now it is like going back to DOS 3.1 PATC and PF3 are much more like flying in the real ATC system. 

+1 Bob!

2 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.

True... I'm glad, that you're glad on my behalf... I won't take sides, generalize my opinion or state my personal opinion as fact. 

I'm not saying all other ATC alternatives are crap, or doesn't work. All I'm saying is that, in my opinion, RC4 is the one ATC addon, which works best for me, personally! I especially like the feature from RC4, that - for instance - flightnumber 299 is pronounced two-ninetynine and not two-nine-nine in the US. 

For some weird reason, everytime I use PF3 and select a flightplan, the assigned flightlevel is changed. Sometimes from FL340 to FL350 and other times it's more profound. I don't know why, but it's kinda annoying, since I then have to change it back, for all the waypoints... 

ProATC is nice, but - again in my opinion - missing some of the easy setup from RC4. Also, voices in ProATC is missing correct airlines pronounciations.

1 hour ago, Anders Gron said:

For some weird reason, everytime I use PF3 and select a flightplan, the assigned flightlevel is changed. Sometimes from FL340 to FL350 and other times it's more profound. I don't know why, but it's kinda annoying, since I then have to change it back, for all the waypoints...

That is strange. If you have the time, I'd like to see the flightplan and debug log in such a situation. (Edit: But better in the PF3 support forum, not here)

But if you want to change multiple waypoints, you can use the "quick-entry mode" in the adjustment page, which allows changing all altitudes from one waypoint to any other to the same value with only entering the altitude once.

Got myself PF3 yesterday, Looks good, sounds good, but hotkyes set-up is a real mess. Why didn't they use FSUIPS display menus and sub-menus with 1-2-3-4 like RC4 did? 

I haven't done a flight with PF3 yet, but for me it looks like enhanced version of RC4

45 minutes ago, G-YMML1 said:

Got myself PF3 yesterday, Looks good, sounds good, but hotkyes set-up is a real mess. Why didn't they use FSUIPS display menus and sub-menus with 1-2-3-4 like RC4 did?

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).