Current thoughts on ATC programs

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Shomron said:

How is Pro ATC vectoring?

As I said above you need to edit your flightplan in order to get vectors but once you managed to do that vectoring is quite fine.

I just finished a short flight from ENZV Stavanger/Sola to ENCN Kristiansand/Kjevik with my Majestic Q400. ProATC's flightplan would have been ENZV DCT BIVKI DCT PEVEB ENCN, where BIVKI is the SID exit point and PEVEB the STAR entry point. So I opened the various SID and STAR charts to see of they contained any useful waypoints. The SID didn't but the STAR contained SOLSI which was situated rather nicely. I then went to SkyVector and searched for a conveniently situated waypoint close to ENZV that wasn't used for a SID (at least and not for an ENZV STAR) and found RIVEX.

So my flightplan in ProATC ended up as ENZV DCT RIVEX DCT SOLSI ENCN.

In P3D, after doing the cockpit prep, etc. ATC Clearance assigned me the departure runway and said I could expect vectors after take off. I entered the basic flightplan into the FMS. ATC said nothing about a SID (and neither about a STAR later on) so I didn't have to set the departure into the FMS.

After take off I flew straight ahead in HDG mode. After being switched to Departure I was told to fly a certain heading that would lead me, as ATC also said, to RIVEX. I then switched to LNAV mode and flew all the way to SOLSI without any heading directions from ATC.

Just before passing SOLSI, and while already descending as ATC instructed me, I was told to fly a heading of 085. In the meantime ILS RWY 21 had been assigned to me which I entered into the FMS.

When getting closer to the airport I was told to fly a heading of 175 and was cleared for the ILS. This heading led me perfectly to the ILS path.

So ProATC did a perfect job here: no constant or odd heading changes, just one initial heading change to get me in the direction of my first waypoint, then one heading change to get me to the 'fake intersection' and then one heading change that led me on a perfect path to intercept the ILS. Awesome job, ProATC! 🙂

Another good thing: it was a short flight at FL140 and ProATC only assigned me only three lower altitudes: FL110, 6000 FT and 3000 FT, so it also did a nice job there: not too many instructions.

As you can see it was perfect weather to fly such an ATC vectored ILS approach:

I have to say that flying this way, with vectors, is a lot more fun than simply flying a SID and STAR from start to finish. Not only because the flight I am doing is close to the real world domestic Wideroe flights I am simulating (where SIDs and STARs never flown) but also it keeps you (even more) busy: I'm not just following the purple LNAV path on AP but have to set heading etc. so the flight has some more suprises. 😉 ProATC's instructions also aren't useless and annoying as they can be with SIDs and STARs. You actually need them!

HOWEVER! Take care when you fly from and to airports that have mountains all around them! Because afaik ProATC doesn't see them. But neither does any other ATC addon (afaik). With airports like that it's always wise to fly a SID and STAR.

Edited October 21, 2018 by Guest

[RALF9636 1,966]

4 hours ago, J van E said:

Just before passing SOLSI, and while already descending as ATC instructed me, I was told to fly a heading of 085. In the meantime ILS RWY 21 had been assigned to me which I entered into the FMS.

When getting closer to the airport I was told to fly a heading of 175 and was cleared for the ILS. This heading led me perfectly to the ILS path.

So ProATC did a perfect job here: no constant or odd heading changes, just one initial heading change to get me in the direction of my first waypoint, then one heading change to get me to the 'fake intersection' and then one heading change that led me on a perfect path to intercept the ILS. Awesome job, ProATC! 🙂

...

 

Nothing wrong if you enjoy it that way.

But I prefer the more extensive vectoring of PF3 because I consider  it more realistic. The purpose of ATC vectoring normally is not to guide a pilot to the approach but to separate traffic and manage the traffic flow. ATC expects a commercial airline pilot to be able to find the way to the approach on his own. Normally guidance is only given in emergency or when the pilot got lost for whatever reason. If there is no need for traffic management because the airspace is free, ATC will rather give a direct clearance to a waypoint (and expect the pilot to find his way to that waypoint on his own) than give a vector.

The more extensive vectoring in PF3 happens on purpose; it tries to simulate vectoring for traffic separation and traffic flow. For flying a simple pattern no ATC guidance is needed normally.

Anyone with real world experience please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

That's why I mostly use the STAR option in PF3 and let the Randomizer give me direct clearances or a clearance at pilot's discretion, when I fly to airports with few traffic. Only when flying into major hubs I choose to be vectored.

 

Quote

I have to say that flying this way, with vectors, is a lot more fun than simply flying a SID and STAR from start to finish. Not only because the flight I am doing is close to the real world domestic Wideroe flights I am simulating (where SIDs and STARs never flown) but also it keeps you (even more) busy: I'm not just following the purple LNAV path on AP but have to set heading etc. so the flight has some more suprises.

Even more with more extensive vectoring... 😉

 

Quote

ProATC's instructions also aren't useless and annoying as they can be with SIDs and STARs. You actually need them!

Not really, your FMC would easily find the way to the FAF on its own.

 

Quote

HOWEVER! Take care when you fly from and to airports that have mountains all around them! Because afaik ProATC doesn't see them. But neither does any other ATC addon (afaik). With airports like that it's always wise to fly a SID and STAR.

The same goes for PF3, admittedly.

Edited October 21, 2018 by RALF9636

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

But I prefer the more extensive vectoring of PF3 because I consider  it more realistic.

During my last flight I was vectored around 7 times so that was a bit more extensive LOL

40 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

ATC will rather give a direct clearance to a waypoint (and expect the pilot to find his way to that waypoint on his own) than give a vector. 

But what if there isn't an actual waypoint? Isn't it also ATC's job to put you on a good intercept path to the FAF if you aren't flying a STAR and after assigning you a runway to land on? Of course I could have found the FAF myself after passing my last regular waypoint but I'd had to fly a bit around to get on a good and useful heading towards it: I rather have ATC vectoring me to a 'virtual intersection': if gives me the idea they know what's going on and where to fly best. Sounds better than me just flying anyway I like to.

Just flew into ENBR coming from the south and I had to land on runway 35: it was quite a long way around the airport I had to make. I liked how ATC positioned me: I could have positioned myself but I prefered ATC leading me. Could well be this isn't realistic but as you said: " Nothing wrong if you enjoy it that way." 😉 Being led by ATC felt more realistic or at least more fun than finding my own way to it. 😉 Specially since the waypoint they led me to wasn't an actual waypoint but more a position.

Anyway, since the flights I am doing aren't flown with SID and STAR in real life (they are at least skipped completely) I think what I am doing now comes closest to what happens in real life. Obviously nothing is perfect: for instance I have to pick two rather random and not too realistic waypoints for every flight because ProATC can't do a simple flight from A to B: it needs two waypoints and they can't be SID or STAR waypoints whenever I want vectors...

(I'd love to get my hands on the real world flightplans but that seems impossible.)

Edited October 21, 2018 by Guest

[RALF9636 1,966]

1 hour ago, J van E said:

(I'd love to get my hands on the real world flightplans but that seems impossible.)

Did you already try Flightaware, under "Live Flight Tracking": "IFR Route Analyzer"?

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

Did you already try Flightaware, under "Live Flight Tracking": "IFR Route Analyzer"?

 

Yes, but no routes are given. I can of course see the flown route but no details about waypoints. I only fly domestic Wideroe flights in southern Norway. AFAIK European routes are never shown on Flightaware. But well, even if I did get waypoints I'd probably get into problems with ProATC wanting me to fly a SID or STAR which I don't want to do.

Edited October 21, 2018 by Guest

[DrumsArt 270]

8 hours ago, J van E said:

HOWEVER! Take care when you fly from and to airports that have mountains all around them! Because afaik ProATC doesn't see them. But neither does any other ATC addon (afaik). With airports like that it's always wise to fly a SID and STAR.

This is not correct. VoxAtc v7.4x sees them in real time during vectoring and does it correctly.

Richard

Edited October 21, 2018 by DrumsArt

[FLJeff337 12]

A week or so ago, I went ahead and purchased ProATC-X (after having first tried out the trial versions of PF3 and VoxATC) and my feelings towards PATCX are mixed (although when I purchased the program, I knew going in that I might be disappointed).

I only fly small GA, and while on one hand I heard that PATCX was really intended for larger aircraft (i.e. turbojets/props), I also heard from people who were happy with it when flying GA.

After having a couple flights under my belt, I'm on one hand impressed by the potential I see in the program (which is probably already realized by those who fly higher performance aircraft), while on the other, disappointed in the lack of support for smaller GA flights.

What I Like:
- Clean interface and easy to use menu
- Use of RW navdata
- Voices seem better than PF3 or VoXATC, and sound as good (in their own way) as the default voices (and I am aware that the demo version of PF3 comes with a limited number of voices, and that the ones included in the demo aren't necessarily the best, thus making my comparison to PATCX admittedly a bit unfair)
 
What I Don't Like:
- At untowered airports, PATCX creates fictional Clearance, Ground and Tower controllers (which I didn't know it did until after I bought the program, encountered the issue and then googled it); apparently these are required for PATCX to work, and at airports without them, PATCX will create fictional placeholders to ensure those requirements are met.
- Some frequencies don't agree with RW frequencies; for instance: 124.82 for Orlando approach (should've been 119.40 for my location/altitude), 119.77 for Ft Myers Approach (should've been 126.80 when approaching from north-northwest as I was)
- Can't seem to request RNAV approach or approach transition (no options under "Request Alternate Approach Procedure" for the several flights I flew); although I was able to request direct to the IF for an RNAV approach on one flight (though not the transition waypoint, nor even the IAF)
- Vectoring seems excessive at times
- Inability to request taxi to GA parking
- Required to choose airline name

For those reasons, I'll pass on using PATCX for now, which is frustrating since I think it could be a really impressive program (for my kind of flying) if they were only able to expand it to better handle GA (including non-towered airports, GPS/RNAV approaches/transitions (where appropriate) and shorter routes). I'm sure if I flew longer routes in more capable aircraft between larger airports I'd come away more impressed with the program.

I'm currently gravitating towards using either default ATC or VoxATC (I wasn't too impressed with PF3), and my reasons for all three can be found here: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/544228-proatc-x-and-ga/.

I'm also considering RC4 (despite it's age) given that many people have commented on how it's a fairly rock-solid program, but was curious how it compares to default or VoxATC. I'm less concerned with SIDs/STARs, VFR capability and natural-sounding voices, and more concerned with correct frequencies (which default ATC seems to have nailed), RNAV approaches/transitions (are they recognized, and if so, do you have to request them as you do with default, or are they assigned by ATC), IFR operations at untowered airports (something not realistically possible with PATCX) and sensible vectoring (where I'm not vectored far from the airport as if I were a 7X7 or Airbus when I'm only flying a Cessna).

Thanks,

Jeff

Edited November 1, 2018 by FLJeff337

[Pete Dowson 558]

13 minutes ago, FLJeff337 said:

Some frequencies don't agree with RW frequencies; for instance: 124.82 for Orlando approach (should've been 119.40 for my location/altitude), 119.77 for Ft Myers Approach (should've been 126.80 when approaching from north-northwest as I was)

I don't think any ATC packages select different frequencies depending on approach -- they all have one chosen frequency per base function per airport. Certainly RC4 and Pilot2ATC are the same.

Pete

 

[Radial9 69]

Having read and reread this thread WAY too many times I am finally pulling the trigger on PF3. I fly both GA and am transitioning to commercial airliners. PF3 seems to be the best of both GA and commercial use offering ATC. I believe I can live with the SID/STAR situation in PF3. A great and very useful debate. A special shout out to Bobsk8 for taking the time to detail the SID/STAR issue using an EFB. I respect and understand the counter thinking, but his reasonings for PF3 made the most sense to this old pilot.

I’ll spend some time reading, using, learning and screwing up and come back and post a follow up. GREAT ATC post, probably the best in years that I could find providing some contrast between ATC offerings currently out there.

Thanks again!

Cheers,

Bob

Edited February 27, 2019 by Radial9

[Bobsk8 12,735]

3 minutes ago, Radial9 said:

Having read and reread this thread WAY too many times I am finally pulling the trigger on PF3. I fly both GA and am transitioning to commercial airliners. PF3 seems to be the best of both GA and commercial use offering ATC. I believe I can live with the SID/STAR situation in PF3. A great and very useful debate. A special shout out to Bobsk8 for taking the time to detail the SID/STAR issuing using an EFB. I respect and understand the counter thinking, but his reasonings for PF3 made the most sense to this old pilot.

I’ll spend some time reading, using, learning and screwing up and come back and post a follow up. GREAT ATC post, probably the best in years that I could find providing some contrast between ATC offerings currently out there.

Thanks again!

Cheers,

Bob

Been flying PF3 for almost 2 years and love it. If you want to really add to your flying, coupled with EFB version 2 and you will have everything you will ever need to VFR and IFR flying.