I would appreciate some feedback on an Air Traffic Control addon. I am looking at purchasing Radar Contact V4 for FS and as I watched a video by bojote http://www.simradar.com/Feature/3980/Ultimate_realism.html at the RC4 forum I found that ATC sounded very "robot like" as compared to the ATC Voices in FS2004. Really nice video though. Any opinions as to what the best ATC addon short of using VATSIM is?Thanks,

Depends on what you are looking for. If you want real people, real voices, fly where everyone else is flying/controlling, use VATSIM. If you want some enhancements to default ATC still using keyboard controls, VFR or IFR, faster ATC talk, choice of ICAO or FAA phrasing install Editvoicepack. If you want very highly accurate IFR phrasing and procedures, still keyboard controlled, use RC4. If you want to try voice recognition ATC, IFR or VFR, FAA or UK phraseology look at VoxATC.

RC4 is great for jetliners and all IFR flights. It is a great ATC replacement and almost fully featured. Unfortunately, it does not really support VFR flights and does not handle any ground traffic.The sounds are really not as bad as they sound in the video. I have to say that I would have rather had the more natural sounding synthesized voices a la FSATC, because even with the synthesized voices you get a better "sound" without gaps, but I guess that's just my personal preference.The RC team is very supportive and very helpful with all your questions. As this point, it is, despite the minor shortcomings, a great add-on.Pat

Thanks for your help guys. So RC4 doesn't sound as bad as the video huh. I will have a look at them all and make up my mind based on your info. Does editvoicepack handle altitude transitions and aircraft course changes (hopefully fewer) better than FSATC? Cheers,

As you can see with my signature I am a fan of RCV4.Of course I find it to be a great product.

Very good posting above on the differents ATC addons.I been using Radar Contact from the first time this program was issued.I have seen its develpment, and the fact that it probably has the best customer support in simming world.Most of the time I get fed up with VATSIM since its controllers coverage is plenty only for big airports. Most of the time one is flying without even the benefit of some Chat a la Radar Contact.It is a pity there was such a supercritical post on the issue of the voices sound based on a VIDEO. This might have given some people the wrong idea.Eventhough I might sound like an evangelist for Radar Contact 4, this is basically based on the quality of the program, customer support, and great group of RC fans.I mainly fly IFR, with mid/big Jets, but even with some advanced GA I also use R.Contact.You can not go wrong with Radar Contact.Edmundo CardenasCaracas, Venezuela

---

http://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannersupporter.jpg]http://www.flythemaddog.com/forum/pilot.gif[/img://http://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4ba.../pilot.gif[/img

Well then you folks have helped me make up my mind it will be RC4 then.Thanks for your help,

The voices issue has improved with RC 4.01 but in all honesty after using RC for about six months the this is still a problem for me - it does detract from what is otherwise an excellent addon particularly if you do most of your flying in North America. There are other issues if you fly in places like Australia because RC phraseology/procedures differ markedly from the real world. Now if only Koorby and the VOZ team could tackle ATC but I guess they have more than enough on their plate as it is. Bruceb

Koorby could give us Aussie Traffic Control... ATC ;)Great idea!

I was immediately put off by the voices in RC initially, but there is a patch that fixes that. Night and day. No longer anything more than a trivial issue for me. I almost never flew IFR before obtaining RC, but no I do almost exclusively. I really do like it. Heads and shoulders above the default ATC when it comes to handling IAPs, GPS approaches, and general authenticity. As they say: "Once you go RC, you never go back." Of course, it is not perfect. It still has some issues around interacting with AI (the default ATC does a better job keeping them off the rwy when you are approaching for example), untowered airports (once you leave center, you are no longer able to hear much of the local traffic nor broadcast your position, turning to base, etc), ground handling (the program can't tell where you are or what parking exists, so it can direct you, assign you, keep others out of your way, or alert you to others. Instead it just makes references to fictitious exits and taxiways, strictly for ambience), adding callsigns, airlines, locations (no EditVoicePack). But nothing is perfect and one can assume that these things are on the list for next version. It is expensive as add ons go, but mow a few lawns or have a garage sale if you must to get it. Two things that are not often mentioned that deserve adding: 1. The developer is very supportive and committed to his customers. he surely deserves being mentioned in the same breath as the best examples that are frequently debated around here. 2. The program is remarkably stable. It just NEVER crashes or interferes with other things. It may have its limits but this beast plays well with others.

>I was immediately put off by the voices in RC initially, but>there is a patch that fixes that. Night and day. No longer>anything more than a trivial issue for me. Like everything in the FS, many comments are due to personal preference. Pilots who have flown using real ATC might be put off a bit by it, but Ive used the FS since long before ATC existed, and have absolutely no problem with the voices in RC. Much may depend upon what we feel is most important, and as one who has flown almost exclusively with Props, and IFR, my preference for RC is overwhelmingly in favor. There really is no comparison between the FS ATC function and RC ATC function, RC stands alone as the preferred method for IFR flight operations.Even when I fly VFR, all my flights usually begin as IFR flights. Departing from KFUL, a flight plan is always filed. Flying to Big Bear City, or to Yosemite, and other National Parks, which are my favorite flights. You can find your way anywhere in the world with a flightplan, then cancel the flight plan, to fly VFR around the area you want to enjoy. (I've flown 'round the world five times.)>Of course, it is not perfect. It still has some issues around>interacting with AI (the default ATC does a better job keeping>them off the rwy when you are approaching for example),I've never had a problem with aircraft on the runway. It may depend upon how many AI are in the FS, etc... RC moves inbound AI out of the way, so I no longer have Jet aircraft passing me to land, causing the tower to tell me to go around. Sometimes that has happened multiple times in the FS, before RC. Aircraft do no pull onto the runway when I'm on approach. This may be due to the fact that I -only- use GA airfields, but I do have a LOT of aircraft there also. Using GA-Traffic can usually count fifty or more aircraft on the field at KFUL.>But nothing is perfect and one can assume that these things>are on the list for next version. It is expensive as add ons>go, but mow a few lawns or have a garage sale if you must to>get it. From my viewpoint, it is not expensive at all. My judgement of software is based not just on cost, but what you get for your money. $ for $, the value of RC far surpasses that of any other software Ive used, except maybe the FS itself. Depending upon how much you fly, cost becomes very incidental. If you purchase an aircraft, you may fly it a lot, but it's not usually the only one you fly. If you fly mostly VFR, and only a couple of hours a week, RC may not be worth the cost. But, if you fly IFR all the time, and fly 3-5 hours or more per day, several days a week, no matter what aircraft you fly, you still use RC. RC costs a very small fraction of a cent per hour of flight. If you went to ten movies a month, it would cost more, and next month would have to pay for entertainment all over again. But, you get your full value for RC the first month, then, you get to use RC -free- until the next version. No other program or software combination with the FS has given me so many hours of Pleasure. Even a six week vacation we just took in our Motorhome, cost much more per hour just for the gas. Yet, I still took the FS with me on my laptop, and was enjoying the FS & RC during the trip. Enjoying the hours spent with the FS, as much as the rest of the trip. (I'd fly the route we had traveled that day, landing at the local stip nearest the campground.) :-)

Briefly the voice engine is being rewritten and is in I believe alpha testing according to forum posts.It is constantly in development and user input via their forum here on AVSIM is taken seriously.RC is for serious ATC controlled flight only whether jets or GA requiring filed IFR plans. The "boss" of the development team is an FAA controller.

After reading the great posts on this subject, I have one more question I'm not sure about. If RC doesn't handle ground traffic, how do you work your way around the airport if you start your flight at a gate? Is it still possible to use the default ATC for ground operations and then switch to RC for in-flight communications? I'm seriously considering purchasing this but the question about ground handling presents me with more questions than answers. Thanks for any imput concerning this feature of Radar contact. Bill

Because RC does not offer AI ground seperation, you're pretty much on your own. This is probably the one feature that definitely should have been implemented into RCv4, as we have had this feature for a few years with FS ATC.And, no, you can't switch back and forth with the default ATC and RCv4.RCv4 is best ATC around, but the lack of ground handling and VFR is disappointing.Pat

If I can chime in here. Though RC4 doesn't handle ground traffic that just means the onus is on you to avoid collisions, however, there are no runway incursions by AI aircraft while others are landing now, far less go-arounds than default ATC, and I've had no near misses with AI traffic since using it.