9 hours ago, DrumsArt said:

I would also add that these three programs have evaluation versions. Try and choose

Thanks, Richard, will try them.

Hans

9 hours ago, Dirk98 said:

If you plan to use voice commands later on then I'd suggest PF3, otherwise PATC-X.

No, keyboard commands only is fine with me. Thanks, Dirk

Hans

Does anyone know why the Pro-ATC/X developer won't offer a demo or trial version?

This makes me somewhat suspicious considering that PF3, VoxATC, and Pilot2Atc all offer this. 

What is the developer afraid of?

Dave

36 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Does anyone know why the Pro-ATC/X developer won't offer a demo or trial version?

This makes me somewhat suspicious considering that PF3, VoxATC, and Pilot2Atc all offer this. 

What is the developer afraid of?

Dave

Hackers can take trial software and break it more easy as you can bypass the assembler code which define the trial / no trial variables super easy.

Although there are ways to avoid this it requires a lot of work and it doesn't warranty it will stop hackers cracking your code anyway, so maybe that is one of the reasons.

Regards,
S.

 

11 hours ago, RALF9636 said:

So it saves you 3 minutes in your flight preparation. You decide if that is more important to you than being able to fly a realistic STAR.

For me it is.  In thousands of hours of real world jet flying, the number of times I've been assigned a STAR is relatively low compared to radar vectors to an approach.  And most of the times I did get a STAR, it was the one I filed using a preferred routing...so having ATC give me random arrivals is a fringe capability that does not add much at all to actual "realism".  Competent radar vectoring, proper terminology, and proper procedures are FAR more important to me than the "realism" of getting cleared for the "INDIA ROMEO OSCAR NOVEMBER SIERRA SEVEN ARRIVAL" and then having the program call every turn and altitude change on the approach.

If one doesn't have any idea of what "real" is, then "realistic" is whatever they want it to be, I guess.

Regards

 

49 minutes ago, w6kd said:

For me it is.  In thousands of hours of real world jet flying, the number of times I've been assigned a STAR is relatively low compared to radar vectors to an approach.  And most of the times I did get a STAR, it was the one I filed using a preferred routing...so having ATC give me random arrivals is a fringe capability that does not add much at all to actual "realism".  Competent radar vectoring, proper terminology, and proper procedures are FAR more important to me than the "realism" of getting cleared for the "INDIA ROMEO OSCAR NOVEMBER SIERRA SEVEN ARRIVAL" and then having the program call every turn and altitude change on the approach.

If one doesn't have any idea of what "real" is, then "realistic" is whatever they want it to be, I guess.

Regards

 

Then you should definitely try current PF3 as your first ATC choice.

Cheers

PS: I mean PF3's ATC is the most flexible of all

Edited April 25, 20188 yr by Dirk98

3 hours ago, w6kd said:

Competent radar vectoring, proper terminology, and proper procedures are FAR more important to me than the "realism" of getting cleared for the "INDIA ROMEO OSCAR NOVEMBER SIERRA SEVEN ARRIVAL" ...

 

I totally agree with you. PF3 gives you all that btw.

 

3 hours ago, w6kd said:

and then having the program call every turn and altitude change on the approach.

 

PF3 does not do that (when you fly a STAR).

 

Last evening I decided to dig out PF3 and start a flight in the NGX just to remind myself for why I switched to PATC X. I listened to the ATIS from PF3 which gave the active runway as 27 at KTPA. I set up the FMC in the NGX with departure runway as 27, in order to set my V speeds. Then I switched to clearance, and unlike PATC which gives the takeoff runway in Clearance so that I can set everything up prior to engine start, no mention of the runway was given by Clearance Del. The very robotic voices ( every one sound like a robot from a 1950's movie) , then told me to go to ground for push and start. I then contacted ground, and ground tells me to taxi to runway 18L for takeoff. 

 

I hit the exit button, and did the flight with PATC,  

Edited April 26, 20188 yr by Bobsk8

I don't know Bob, something tells me you just don't want to use PF3 at all, it's your choice, of course! You could find answers to all your questions on the PF3 boards easily, PF3 is very well supported and from my personal experience much easier and faster. 

PF3 follows AI perception of current wx so whatever happened with your runway allocation was connected to the current state of  wx and ai in the simulator.

You could easily set a single rwy you'd like to take off in the settings.

You could override and request the rwy you'd like to take off.

You could change the setting in ASP4 where it gives more consistent winds at departure and destination for exactly the problem you described that sometimes also happened to me in PATC-X as well. (I agree in PF3 it's a little more sensitive, but manageable no problem).

It's your call anyway.

Cheers.

Edited April 26, 20188 yr by Dirk98

23 hours ago, simbol said:

Hackers can take trial software and break it more easy as you can bypass the assembler code which define the trial / no trial variables super easy.

Although there are ways to avoid this it requires a lot of work and it doesn't warranty it will stop hackers cracking your code anyway, so maybe that is one of the reasons.

Regards,
S.

 

Well, that's a risk with any software that *all* developers have to accept.  He could make a version that only works at a few airports like the developer of PF3 did.

Despite what supporters of PF3 say here, I tried it on 2 separate occasions about a year apart and was frustrated and disappointed both times.  I'm sure it has some advantages compared to other ATC programs, but it just isn't for me. 

On the other hand, I have read that Pro-ATCX does not support VFR flights.  I wonder if this is still the case.

A question for Pro-ATCX users: does the ATC enunciate the entire airline names now instead of just spelling them out?  I know this was a negative aspect of the product in the past.

Thanks.

Dave

Or you can just do it properly and use VATSIM

19 minutes ago, ErichB said:

Or you can just do it properly and use VATSIM

Don't care for taking off and landing on Unicomm or being cleared for the ILS, when I am 7,000 feet directly over the airport. 😉

Just now, Bobsk8 said:

Don't care for taking off and landing on Unicomm or being cleared for the ILS, when I am 7,000 feet directly over the airport. 😉

😁

You know I just threw that in there to get you to respond Bob.  :))) 

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Well, that's a risk with any software that *all* developers have to accept. 

Will you install a lock for your house main door that you known is insecure?

S

5 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Last evening I decided to dig out PF3 and start a flight in the NGX just to remind myself for why I switched to PATC X. I listened to the ATIS from PF3 which gave the active runway as 27 at KTPA. I set up the FMC in the NGX with departure runway as 27, in order to set my V speeds. Then I switched to clearance, and unlike PATC which gives the takeoff runway in Clearance so that I can set everything up prior to engine start, no mention of the runway was given by Clearance Del. The very robotic voices ( every one sound like a robot from a 1950's movie) , then told me to go to ground for push and start. I then contacted ground, and ground tells me to taxi to runway 18L for takeoff. 

 

I hit the exit button, and did the flight with PATC,  

Hi Bob-

I think I might try this. I've never used ATC for whatever reason but it seems that it has come far enough for me to give it a try.

Cheers,

Mark