3 hours ago, Rockliffe said:

I agree wholeheartedly. It seems crazy to me too. I'm sure they will lose many potential customers by not doing so 😐

It has been asked many times over the years, I seriously doubt if PATCX will ever offer a free demo. 

Off the back of my last post, and forgive me if this have already been asked, but does ProAtc still vector into mountains (as does default ATC) or does it now take into consideration terrain height? Also, am I correct in thinking ProATC manages AI as does VoxATC.  Cheers.

 

Edited October 7, 20187 yr by Rockliffe

On 10/5/2018 at 12:12 PM, eslader said:

Do any of the ATC addons allow for that? It can be annoying to do a long flight, the wind shifts before you get there, and then you have to figure out workarounds to ATC so you can land on the correct runway.

 

If you use Active Sky, under Wind Options, there is a setting called "Force ATC Wind Lock" which should address this issue.

21 minutes ago, pgde said:

If you use Active Sky, under Wind Options, there is a setting called "Force ATC Wind Lock" which should address this issue.

The issue isn’t the change of weather but having to figure out workarounds for ATC yourself. 😉 ProATC however doesn’t need workarounds because it will change the approach on the fly.

Regarding instructions that would have you crashing into terrain I'll just mention how RC4 handles it. If an airport at either departure or destination is close to high ground the user needs to tick the NOTAMS option for that airport.

When airborne you will then be instructed to "climb / descend to nnn if able". That's the key element. RC4 will not nag you if you remain at your chosen altitude and only descend when safe to do so.

How do the other popular ATC programs handle this?

Edited October 7, 20187 yr by Ray Proudfoot

6 hours ago, pgde said:

If you use Active Sky, under Wind Options, there is a setting called "Force ATC Wind Lock" which should address this issue.

I do use Active Sky, but I'm not a fan of dumbing down the weather just because the ATC system can't handle it. 😉

 

6 hours ago, J van E said:

The issue isn’t the change of weather but having to figure out workarounds for ATC yourself. 😉 ProATC however doesn’t need workarounds because it will change the approach on the fly.

As will Pilot2ATC unless you set the option to force it to stick to a pre-determined pilot choice.

4 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

How do the other popular ATC programs handle this?

ProATC/X and Pilot2ATC support (and assign) STARs, which have terrain clearance included. If you, the pilot, decide to do the approach without that benefit then it's up to you, as it was with RC.

1 hour ago, eslader said:

I do use Active Sky, but I'm not a fan of dumbing down the weather just because the ATC system can't handle it. 😉

Not needed -- I'm pretty sure all the main ATC programs discussed here are capable of selecting runway and approach to suit the weather on arrival. With Pilot2ATC (and, as far as I recall, ProATC/X) you are told what approach to expect before commencing descent from cruise. I think even after that point it can be changed if the weather really is so variable (or it's a long long descent?), but of course that could be more problematic.

The ActiveSky lock was added by HiFi Simulations on request, and operates at about 40 nm away from the airport. I think that this was based on the RC distance at which the approach was determined.  It ensures that the weather read by the ATC program matches that which you expect on arrival.

That lock also helps ensure that the AI traffic are set for the same or compatible runway to try to avoid the occasions where you see them landing or taking off from the other end of the runway you are approaching. Significant changes in the weather closer to the airport are problematic for that reason too.

So, it isn't really a "dumbing down", just a delay in any later changes.

Pete

 

Edited October 7, 20187 yr by Pete Dowson

Yeah it’s the AI that can’t handle it lol. Hopefully that new ai addon being developed will fix that at least partially. 

13 hours ago, J van E said:

The issue isn’t the change of weather but having to figure out workarounds for ATC yourself. 😉 ProATC however doesn’t need workarounds because it will change the approach on the fly.

The only problem I have is when wind is below 4-5 knots. In this case it happens quite often that PATC assigns the reverse runway direction (e.g. RW 09) as the AI traffic is assigned to (e.g. RW 27).

Edited October 8, 20187 yr by Nemo

7 hours ago, Pete Dowson said:

I'm pretty sure all the main ATC programs discussed here are capable of selecting runway and approach to suit the weather on arrival.

The advantage of ProATC and Pilot2ATC being that ATC does it for you, as in real life. With PF3 you have to take care of it yourself. You have to tell ATC what it should tell you. 

PF3 automatically assigns the runway according to AI traffic and wind.

Edited October 8, 20187 yr by RALF9636

5 hours ago, J van E said:

The advantage of ProATC and Pilot2ATC being that ATC does it for you, as in real life. With PF3 you have to take care of it yourself. You have to tell ATC what it should tell you. 

Not true. ATC assigns the active runway each and every time. If you want another runway, you can request it. 

Sorry, I was thinking/talking about the STAR. 

Great discussions here. Very helpful.

Spent a bunch of time this weekend looking over all three programs websites. This old pilot is slowly making his way from the piston age to the turboprop age. Nearly 2K hours of DC3 logged hours I  figured it was time for some "variety". Got my Q400 airworthy. PFPX loaded and learning. Fighting getting AviliaSoft EFB demo up and running, but I'm sure we will get there.

At this point I'm drawn toward PF3, mostly because of the well written manual I read through and the fact I would prefer an ATC that is just an ATC, not another Swiss Army knife program that wants to do what PFPX and my EFB already do. I also like the concept of separating the SID/STAR from the plan and having choices. Reading all the "lively discussion" here this makes the most sense to this old pilot.

This piece of my Flightsim environment is a bit down the road, but I needed to ask this.

Should I decide, install and get stable any AI program FIRST before looking to add an ATC program? I'm also intending to fly my Q400 with a VA, but this may be a great way to get some good training and get more proficient with ATC.

Again, great informative discussion, you gentlemen have helped this "old school" simmer out a great deal. Thanks!

 

55 minutes ago, Radial9 said:

Great discussions here. Very helpful.

Spent a bunch of time this weekend looking over all three programs websites. This old pilot is slowly making his way from the piston age to the turboprop age. Nearly 2K hours of DC3 logged hours I  figured it was time for some "variety". Got my Q400 airworthy. PFPX loaded and learning. Fighting getting AviliaSoft EFB demo up and running, but I'm sure we will get there.

At this point I'm drawn toward PF3, mostly because of the well written manual I read through and the fact I would prefer an ATC that is just an ATC, not another Swiss Army knife program that wants to do what PFPX and my EFB already do. I also like the concept of separating the SID/STAR from the plan and having choices. Reading all the "lively discussion" here this makes the most sense to this old pilot.

This piece of my Flightsim environment is a bit down the road, but I needed to ask this.

Should I decide, install and get stable any AI program FIRST before looking to add an ATC program? I'm also intending to fly my Q400 with a VA, but this may be a great way to get some good training and get more proficient with ATC.

Again, great informative discussion, you gentlemen have helped this "old school" simmer out a great deal. Thanks!

 

Yep it's great we have this forum! Started this thread asking about Pro ATC X and ended up getting PF3 😃

I have been using PF3 in the last few days and I am really starting to like it.

However, it does have its drawbacks - 

1. Vectoring & step climbs/descends need to be polished (when compared to old RC4)

2. The planning can be cumbersome when it comes to SID/STARs - I think there is a need to add more flexibility around this

All in all happy I upgraded from RC4.