I was reading about this on the company website and it looks very professional and could add a lot of fun to the flying experience. How do you guys (gals) feel about it? At $44, how wrong could you go. Is is that much different than FS9's stock ATC?Looks like it comes in a box and you can't download it, but that's ok. Interested in your feedback.Thanks!

I recommend it highly! I just got it today and did a short flight and everything worked great! The best thing is that you can import your own flight plan w' SIDs and STARs and actually fly them! There is also the possiblity of weather delays from ATC, holding for weather in the air, vectors for sequencing, emergencies and so much more! This utility is well worth the $44 and I got it in about a week! If you've played the FSX demo, you can tell that they did not improve the ATC system by leaps and bounds and Radar Contact will no doubt update their program for FSX so you can enjoy it for years to come. I think they offer discounts to previous owners of the game if they do decide to issue a new CD, but don't quote me on that. Bottom line, Radar Contact is, in my humble opinion, the premier ATC addon that doesn't require an internet connection and you'll always have ATC no matter where you are. This is an addon you will not regret!

I'll let you draw your own conclusions. Click on my tag to take you to the RC site and then look at the features table. The support forum is here on AVSIM in the commercial support listing. Browse this for pros and cons.Delivery is by CD. You then apply for your registration via e-mail using the built in utility provided during installation. A code will be returned via e-mail.You paste in the code and you are set to go. It covers upgrades to version 4.2 (might need to reregister for this last version after installing the upgrade but there is no cost.) Upgrade links and instructions are provided on the support forum.

>> Is is that much different than FS9's stock ATC? <

I use it all the time. Very worthy alternative to VATSIM when you can't or don't want to fly online... Best part is you can use it for those areas of a VATSIM flight where there aren't any live controllers too...

Think you will enjoy RC4. I have 76.5 flying hours with RC4 since Dec 05, wouldn't fly without it although it will keep you on your toes. Good luck!Erv KSDF

It's a very good program. I've only heard of a few folks unhappy with the purchase.You should always check the support forums of a product before buying - to see what is being said - but most importantly to see how the developers respond.http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...orum=135&page=1Radar Contact is really not a PROGRAM - it's a completely new ATC system with a definite learning curve.You must do their tutorials to get your money's worth - which is true of any program.I don't use it because it still doesn't have many airport and callsigns I use for my AI traffic. They are getting better and are very responsive about adding new sound files. Still a long ways to go before it matches the FS2004 ATC with EditVoicePack.And it will never have the flexibility which EVP gives us - different concept.

Definately worth it. I hadn't flown IFR in years, because ATC was so bad in FS. Now I almost exclusively do, due entirely to the fun of using RC. I wasn't an early adopter, and was skeptical. But several things pushed me toward it. 1. I wanted to to use Departures and Arrivals from RW charts. 2. I wanted to fly in IMC. Because I used VFR mostly, I always had to select weather that was VFR (using Activesky archives) and I occasioanlly got turned away from airports that were closed to VFR, despite my forecast planning. 3. I got vectored into terrain sometimes (with RC I can input the MSA from the charts into the program), 4. I really got annoyed by those stupid default ATC adjustments where they turn you 90 from your heading for a mile or so then turn you back, then turn yopu again, then turn you back, 5. I fly mostly 100-200 mile hops, and default ATC starts you for vectors 90 miles out. Sometimes I would be vectored off my flight plan after only one way point in a very unrealistic way. 6, I wanted step up and down altitudes. 7. I found it distracting that the response key to ATC always changed with changing menus. With RC, consistent keys are used and the process gets very second nature (users will know what I mean). RC is fabulous but not perfect (not being critical). Here are some things to think about:1. The original voices were jarring, but a patch fixed them. Still they take a brief period to get used to. Don't let this influence your decision however.2. I really miss EVP, as Reggie mentioned. I have a lot of diverse traffic (Traffic 2006 and several downloads) had carefully tweaked or added the announciation for many locations and aircraft types and airlines. When I was initially unhappy with RC (got over that!) this issue alone almost caused me to abandon it. There is only the most rudimentary possibilties in RC. Always disappointing to hear RC laborously spell out phonetically a 10 character name.3. Kiss your runup checklist good bye. RC almost always clears you onto the runway and hold, while you are halfway down the taxi. I had to develop a new flow for Magneto checks etc. Add FsPassengers tasks to the workload and you really need to get sharp. You will tho.4. RC doesn't do VFR. It is a bit disappointing to switch back to the default ATC for that. I wish RC had the processes in place for CTAF calls etc in VFR.5. RC doesn't handle untowered airports very thoroughly. No position calls, poor monitoring of traffic. There are some neat stuff, though, like calls to FSS for weather and clearance that sound like telephone calls, not radio, and clearances that expire.6. For all practical purposes, RC stops the minute you take or clear the runway. It was apparently impossible to build any really functional ground control into the program. Thus, the program give you a generic instruction and ("taxi to ramp") and effectively terminates. No taxi path, parking assignment, traffic control, progressive taxi, etc. To some, tho, this is s blessing. I rather like being able to go where I want on the ground.7. The biggest challenge is that a significant minority (apparently) of users find that they become almost invisible to AI. This problem did not surface apparently in beta testing and no one seems to know why it occurs. If it happens to you, what you find is that AI will taxi right into you, take the runway while you on final, taxi across your runway while your taking off, take off toward you while your taking off on same runway at the opposite end, overtake you and land while you are on final. I've had to run off into the grass to avoid being hit on taxi ways by blind aircraft and I go missed a lot anymore. This sounds like it would be a real killer limit but don't be too dismissive. If you are defensive you can anticipate these things and there are workarounds such as monitoring the default ATC in the background to learn which runway they've been assigned etc. Some people have found that the latest FSUIPC helps.Take the plunge

>I use it all the time. Very worthy alternative to VATSIM when>you can't or don't want to fly online... Best part is you can>use it for those areas of a VATSIM flight where there aren't>any live controllers too...One clarification to your generous comment coming from a PMDG developer:RC has no join enroute option. In other words, you can't start RC from anywhere but departure. You can quit RC after departure if you pick up a VATSIM controller but you can not rejoin RC later while enroute. Enroute RC is very strict so you would also not want to run it parallel to a VATSIM controller.BTW you've seen me on the PMDG forum since I fly the 737NG 600 through 900 variants and I am very happy with them. FMC flexibility in following ATC commands such as starting descents on ATC command along with meetying altitude and speed restrictions imposed by RC is very good.This all being said, I should state that RC works with any IFR aircraft class from small GA up to the heavies as long as ATC commands are followed.

Let me address a few of the distractions below :) :>RC is fabulous but not perfect (not being critical). Here are>some things to think about:>>2. I really miss EVP, as Reggie mentioned. I have a lot of>diverse traffic (Traffic 2006 and several downloads) had>carefully tweaked or added the announciation for many>locations and aircraft types and airlines. When I was>initially unhappy with RC (got over that!) this issue alone>almost caused me to abandon it. There is only the most>rudimentary possibilties in RC. Always disappointing to hear>RC laborously spell out phonetically a 10 character name.Requests for additions are looked at for updates. It is complex to update these since RC has many "international" controllers are .wav files must be created for each as well as individual script files.Put a request in the forum for future consideration.>>3. Kiss your runup checklist good bye. RC almost always>clears you onto the runway and hold, while you are halfway>down the taxi. I had to develop a new flow for Magneto checks>etc. Add FsPassengers tasks to the workload and you really>need to get sharp. You will tho.You will not get a line-up and wait or runway entering clearance if AI are taxiing in front of you or on on approach. This can happen in the real world to expedite departure if traffic allows. I use a work around by just choosing (7) acknowledge (without contacting tower). When I have done the run-up and checks and am ready, I then at the hold short contact tower.>>5. RC doesn't handle untowered airports very thoroughly. No>position calls, poor monitoring of traffic. There are some>neat stuff, though, like calls to FSS for weather and>clearance that sound like telephone calls, not radio, and>clearances that expire.Just to clarify here:At a non-controlled airport your clearance via FS will give you a window to contact ATC in the air. I have not landed at a non-controlled airport. You can in all cases for non-ATC monitored arrival and departure I believe use FS ATC for position reports while RC is running. Improvements in RC handling for this are being considered for the next major version. >>6. For all practical purposes, RC stops the minute you take>or clear the runway. It was apparently impossible to build any>really functional ground control into the program. Thus, the>program give you a generic instruction and ("taxi to ramp")>and effectively terminates. No taxi path, parking assignment,>traffic control, progressive taxi, etc. To some, tho, this is>s blessing. I rather like being able to go where I want on>the ground.>If you want a gate assignment you can enter these into the "controller page" and RC will speak it. You can also use FS ATC in parallel for taxi guidance. For departure from you chosen location at the airport the RC window will show bearing and distance to the threshold of your assigned departure runway so you know if you are going in the correct general direction. I use various sources for obtaining airport diagrams. I will also use (with limitations) the freeware AFCAD airport diagram printout. A final option is taxiing using overhead view. Some users are using either FS Nav or FS Flightkeeper, not sure, that gives you a moving window composed of the airport diagram and your and AI positions.>7. The biggest challenge is that a significant minority>(apparently) of users find that they become almost invisible>to AI. This problem did not surface apparently in beta>testing and no one seems to know why it occurs. If it happens>to you, what you find is that AI will taxi right into you,>take the runway while you on final, taxi across your runway>while your taking off, take off toward you while your taking>off on same runway at the opposite end, overtake you and land>while you are on final. I've had to run off into the grass to>avoid being hit on taxi ways by blind aircraft and I go missed>a lot anymore. This sounds like it would be a real killer>limit but don't be too dismissive. If you are defensive you>can anticipate these things and there are workarounds such as>monitoring the default ATC in the background to learn which>runway they've been assigned etc. Some people have found that>the latest FSUIPC helps.>Think 3.70 did :). The responsibility of AI crash prevention on the ground is FS controlled. You may get a taxi instruction to follow the ... In the air RC does control AI for deviation in most cases, call out traffic targets to you, and when you are on final prevents (if all is working) runway incursions. All of these are being rechecked and seemed to improve with the latest FSUIPC. Also beta testers are looking at the complex issue of backtracking on runways. A lot depends on a correct AFCAD for the airport.>Take the plungeThanks for the recommendation.I have been using it for two years since FS2K2 and still with FS2K4.

simply the best you could do! But for IFR flights only. For VFR flights I'm still using the MS ATC. Herman

Ron,It's hard accepting the occasional bollokings. Why is Radar Contact ATC low on charm?.....And why am I called 'Lear' something something Charlie? Why don't they use the Airline call?

You need to choose your airline callsign in the dropdown menu on the atc options page.But I have to agree with all so far, excellent program.

Thanks John, learnt something else today :-)

Some great feedback guys. Sounds like a lot of fun. Just one last question:With RC, do you retain the option to opt out of it and us FS ATC or are you committed once you start?