1 hour ago, simbol said:

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

S

Those lights done yet? 😎

2 hours ago, simbol said:

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

S

I think the better analogy is a shop not having a window so passers by can see in, for purposes of increased security. Their choice, but they’re obviously going to lose most of not all of their walk-in business. Most shops do have windows, for that reason.

James

2 hours ago, honanhal said:

I think the better analogy is a shop not having a window so passers by can see in, for purposes of increased security. Their choice, but they’re obviously going to lose most of not all of their walk-in business. Most shops do have windows, for that reason.

James

There is a difference between showing you stuff through a window and not securing your shop.

You can see the software, there are plenty of screen shots, videos online, forums, information on the website, etc. That is your window.

In any case it is developers decision about what they want to do with their software, having been in the IT security industry for the last 10 years I can tell you that trial software is like gold for pirates and hacker's.

Maybe I am over reacting but I just get very annoyed every time somebody says that software developers have to expect to get hacked and deal with it, that is like asking people to expect to get mugged every day  and deal with it because is the way things are.

The true is that the more a developer gets it software cracked and pirated, the worse it will be for users that wants to buy the product as these will be the ones who will take the financial hit or lose eventually the developer entirely.

All the best,

Simbol 

9 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

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

Don't worry Bob, it happens to me too. I wish there was a database with the so called "proper flight plans". In PRO ATC-X I create a flight plan excluding any SID and/or STAR and the program takes care of the rest. Also the keyboard combination for the different request that one has it's way to complicated and sometimes it doesn't respond to key combinations. Everytime I give PF3 a chance it ends up in frustration. I wished the program would accept or read the SID's and STAR's like PRO ATC-X does with navigraph navdata.

One positive for me its that PF3 VFR flying is great.

19 minutes ago, Samaritano said:

Don't worry Bob, it happens to me too. I wish there was a database with the so called "proper flight plans". In PRO ATC-X I create a flight plan excluding any SID and/or STAR and the program takes care of the rest. Also the keyboard combination for the different request that one has it's way to complicated and sometimes it doesn't respond to key combinations. Everytime I give PF3 a chance it ends up in frustration. I wished the program would accept or read the SID's and STAR's like PRO ATC-X does with navigraph navdata.

One positive for me its that PF3 VFR flying is great.

Yeah, it's a question of if you want to do a flight plan and then go fly, or if you want to program every move you intend on making with your flight from start to finish, before you even takeoff, so the ATC program can follow along with you.....For VFR flying, it works well, but I almost never fly VFR. 

12 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Yeah, it's a question of if you want to do a flight plan and then go fly, or if you want to program every move you intend on making with your flight from start to finish, before you even takeoff, so the ATC program can follow along with you.....For VFR flying, it works well, but I almost never fly VFR. 

For me it's rather if I want to hit autopilot and go fly like a brick on the tracks then PATC-X is the choice, or if I want to make some fine adjustments according to the plane I'm flying and the route, then randomize some things, procedures and vectors, then make a meaningful flight - then I go for PF3. Say if I'm short on time close to my VA's monthly minimal requirement I'd use PATC-X, however last couple of months I've flown PF3 only to some reason. It's just more interesting, rich with features and generally more diverse. However I could simplify it very close to the experience I had flying PATC-X. And I must admit that voice interaction (simplified at least!) is quite important for me. Yes, used to see a lot of b/s in PFE/PF3, PATC-X, VoxATC (v6), but they are all getting better.

You don't need to program every move in PF3 btw, just load the flight plan and go fly.

Edited April 27, 20188 yr by Dirk98

19 hours ago, ErichB said:

Or you can just do it properly and use VATSIM

Surely you meant Pilotedge?

Anyway when I can’t get online or I’m flying outside Pilotedge hours (I’m UK) I use PF3 and find it great for IFR and VFR. 

 

18 minutes ago, Dean33 said:

Surely you meant Pilotedge?

Anyway when I can’t get online or I’m flying outside Pilotedge hours (I’m UK) I use PF3 and find it great for IFR and VFR. 

 

Pilot Edge is great, but has limited coverage (as you know) so its not generally the go to option if you fly in the other 99% of the available global airspace.

A generally immersive, and somewhat realistic sounding environment can only be provided if you have real interaction with real people.    Packaged or pre-packed ATC programs cannot exercise discretion, cannot adapt fast enough to a changing circumstance and does not provide the same immersion as a real person performing an ATC role can.  VATSIM isn't perfect, and you have to go where the ATC is.  But the coverage in Europe - and the US)  is generally good (and competent).  The downside is potential gaps between sectors - which I would take anyday over a .wav file being generated by the PC.  

36 minutes ago, ErichB said:

Pilot Edge is great, but has limited coverage (as you know) so its not generally the go to option if you fly in the other 99% of the available global airspace.

A generally immersive, and somewhat realistic sounding environment can only be provided if you have real interaction with real people.    Packaged or pre-packed ATC programs cannot exercise discretion, cannot adapt fast enough to a changing circumstance and does not provide the same immersion as a real person performing an ATC role can.  VATSIM isn't perfect, and you have to go where the ATC is.  But the coverage in Europe - and the US)  is generally good (and competent).  The downside is potential gaps between sectors - which I would take anyday over a .wav file being generated by the PC.  

Right at this moment there is one controller for the entire United States and Canada, it will probably remain that way for at least 8 hours. Not very realistic ATC. 

41 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Right at this moment there is one controller for the entire United States and Canada, it will probably remain that way for at least 8 hours. Not very realistic ATC. 

Yes, but it's about 8am on the east coast and middle of the night for the west coast.  So I wouldn't expect any ATC and nor would I blame VATSM for that.  We all accept it's a voluntary network, so we have to work with that.  I would still rather fly with no ATC than with event/script driven .wav files.

 

 

3 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Right at this moment there is one controller for the entire United States and Canada, it will probably remain that way for at least 8 hours. Not very realistic ATC. 

Aye, and this is the fundamental flaw I find with vatsim.

On 4/23/2018 at 7:50 PM, Bobsk8 said:

I have tried them all including payware ATC, and Vatsim. Pro ATC X is the most realistic of all of them. 

As long as Pro ATC still shouts 'Request takoff' instead of 'Ready for departure' it's a no go area for me. Strange, that a tool that was created AFTER the ICAO phraseology changed still uses this kind of old and incorrect terms. But I know, changing all the soundfiles is a huge job. I tried PF3, but that one can't handle SIDs and STARs in an elegant manner.

 

Dirk

1 hour ago, Captain45 said:

As long as Pro ATC still shouts 'Request takoff' instead of 'Ready for departure' it's a no go area for me. Strange, that a tool that was created AFTER the ICAO phraseology changed still uses this kind of old and incorrect terms. But I know, changing all the soundfiles is a huge job. I tried PF3, but that one can't handle SIDs and STARs in an elegant manner.

 

Dirk

I fly sids and stars all the time in PF3. PF3 doesn't micromanage how you fly the sid and star, it's up to the pilot after cleared for either one to fly it correctly, either with charts or GPS-FMC. 

On 4/27/2018 at 10:21 AM, Boomer said:

Aye, and this is the fundamental flaw I find with vatsim.

What used to really tick me off, is seeing a controller that has  just signed on, quickly setting up a flight, get going contact controller, and he or she says they are signing off in 5 minutes to watch a game on TV...Bye Vatsim, never again. Total waste of time and energy. 

Edited November 28, 20196 yr by Bobsk8

Radar Contact v4 still remains very attractive and when combined with AIG’s Ai package the chatter between ATC and other aircraft makes for a busy environment.

Even better because it’s free! 👍