Flight planning software

[scandinavian13 5,192]

5 minutes ago, Bob_Z said:

I agree completely about the built-in ATC, but have had problems with VATSIM as well.  First, it's hard to find controllers in the first place unless you fly around NYC or some spots in Europe.  Second, many controllers don't understand what they are doing, i.e. telling me to fly  straight-in to the runway after giving me vectos to more-or-less intercept the localizer.  Third, they don't understand that the pilot is the boss, not the controller.  Yes, you have to follow instructions, but the word "unable" from the pilot should not be met with "you have to do as I say,"   That being said, many  VATSIM people are very good, real controllers in real life.

Right - not perfect, but leaps and bounds better than the garbage packaged into the sim, particularly with regard to using real world procedures.

...also, I very rarely run into any controllers with real issues. Having done the controlling thing for a number of years, to be honest, I think a lot of the pushback about "unable" on VATSIM comes from pilots just not knowing what they're doing, or being on a power trip. In my experience, it only got dragged out when they couldn't figure the FMC out, or as the precursor to an on-freq lecture about how I was doing something wrong. Got in an argument with one pilot because I assigned him an altitude below the MSA (which is advisory only, anyway, absent any other provided altitude), which was "unsafe." Sure. You don't want to descend below the MSA even though my MVA is lower than it, and it's a clear night? Fine. Back of the line and I'll fit you in when I can...

[Gaz 15]

Everyone is confusing me now! Getting back to the problem... 

When I originally used FS9, there were enough addons to provide the PMDG aircraft, a good ATC and the other aircraft to work together. My flights were done using a Flight Plan and the ATC went by that. 

I can't remember which software I used, but it's such a shame that I've come back to fsx to find that nothing seems to be working together like it used to... 

Gary

[30K 72]

2 hours ago, Gary McCluskey said:

Everyone is confusing me now! Getting back to the problem... 

 

Gary what is confusing you?
You want to use the ATC - Kyle says don't and that's it. It may be, that back in the days of FS9 things where different but the world changes you know.

When I was a kid TVs already have been evolved into machines where the remote wasn't me - should I know complain that nothing is like it was before?

You can also still use the built in flightplanning it's just garbage and doing so would be killing the realism (insert Kyles argument regarding ATC).

Actually - just go to simbrief.com install the downloader create a realistic flightplan and you're done.

Also what did you expect? If you stay out of something complex which underlies a constant change and you come back after a long time, well things change.

There was a story about a man which has been send to jail at the beginning of construction of the Berlin wall. After 30 years he came out and needed help from professionals because he gone mad due to everything being different. (Not joking)

 

Also where exactly is your problem now?  Your last post was:

22 hours ago, Gary McCluskey said:

Thanks, I'll take a look at it.

Gary

 

BTW. the transition altitude in the UK is 060 and you forgot to set the altimeter to STD.

Edited May 1, 2018 by 30K

[Gaz 15]

30K, I'm sorry but there are alot of negatives there. You told me the FS9 has changed, and the response of the guy regarding the fall of the Berlin Wall. I'm not going mad because everything is different, I know I'm in a learning phase, which is why there are posts from me. The frustration is not that things got better, it is that they don't work together anymore. 

Speaking as an ex-software developer, if software does not work with other software that it used to, then we're walking backwards. 

If you know about PROATC-X, let me know. It looks good. 

Thanks, Gary

[Ecosse_821 24]

I bought Pro-ATC to try to get something more realistic than the built-in ATC.   It is an expensive program.   It is very buggy and clunky.  The interface sucks.  It vectored me into a mountain in Austria.  I wish I had tried VOX-ATC instead.   I hear it is better.   All that said, I do prefer Pro-ATC  to the built-in ATC, but it is a pain in the neck sometimes.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

15 hours ago, Gary McCluskey said:

Speaking as an ex-software developer, if software does not work with other software that it used to, then we're walking backwards. 

As a software developer at any point, I think you know that you've over-simplified this...

Firstly, the main premise of this argument fails to take into account the intention of the software. You're comparing oranges to saxophones here (stole that line from another member here, though I'm drawing a blank on who, at the moment).

The default ATC is - and always has been - aimed at the user who is just getting a grasp on simming and the very basics of ATC.
The default ATC is NOT - and never has been - aimed at the study level users, who are getting into the complexities of flight operations.

The NGX is - and always has been - aimed at the user who is getting into the complexities of flight operations.
The NGX is NOT - and never has been - aimed at the user who is just getting a grasp on simming and the very basics of flight.
(Worth noting, however, that we do have some concessions to make things easier for the less-experienced simmer, or the one who isn't as into the details.)

You're trying to straddle a Grand Canyon of difference and assert there is a problem where there is none. Using an alternative example, we are continuously making improvements in automotive technology: electronics integration, touch screens, better sound systems, cruise control, better comfort, better fuel economy, and so on. All the same, there also exists a segment of automotive technology that ignores a lot of that. In order to get more performance out of a car, some - even luxury brands - make the suspension harsher (better grip/cornering), the fuel economy slightly worse (better power), and some even under-drive the comforts by using lighter weight seats and lower draw pulleys (which means your seat isn't as comfy, your AC doesn't work as well, and your speakers can't push as much sound). Is that walking backwards? I'd argue, no. They're two products aimed at different segments of the market: one is aimed at the casual driver, the other is aimed at the person who is into "spirited driving" to borrow a term frequently used in BMW manuals.

To make the assertion that software should simply work with other software is to blindly ignore the realities of specialization. I can't open a Photoshop file with MS Paint - that's fine. MS Paint is meant to satisfy the very basic needs of people. Photoshop is a much more powerful tool for people who need more photo editing tools than they know what to do with. The default ATC is like MS Paint: it's a basic thing meant to understand the basics. The NGX is like Photoshop: it's an advanced thing mean to work with advanced concepts. Aimed at two entirely different audiences, there's no real actual reason to get them to work together. Trying to do the stuff you can do with Photoshop in MS Paint is going to waste a ton of time. Trying to use Photoshop as MS Paint is going to waste the entire toolset that Photoshop provides (and a good amount of your money, too).

 

If you want to use the default ATC with the basic flight plan format with no modifications, then fine. Go for it. Either leave the SID and STAR out of your route, or just use the default 737.
If you want to use the NGX for everything the NGX is meant to provide to you, then you probably shouldn't be using the default ATC. Either don't use ATC at all (I don't, and I'm the type who doesn't even fly a flight in a livery that wouldn't fly that flight, or aircraft in the real world), or accept that the default ATC might not always understand the complex flight concepts you are using.

Trying to force two things that are aimed at vastly different purposes is like buying a Ferrari as a daily driver and getting irritated that it's loud, a bit difficult to get in and out of, and you can't use it to its full potential out on the streets...

[Gaz 15]

Thanks for that. 

I have to admit, I understand what is being said. I only just wanted to learn what I used to do years ago, and I think it worked very differently then to what it is now - although I agree things were probably still not like the real world atc back then, either. 

I appreciate your support. 

Gary