One has to disable the default ATC else both it and VOXATC will be controlling two independent sets of AI aircraft.

20 hours ago, FPStewy said:

I do refile IFR when I'm somewhat close, if I just contact the tower and there's bad weather it will be negative airport is IFR only.

Ah, that makes sense - had forgotten about airport closures (though if that happened to me, I might just opt for civil disobedience...😎

20 hours ago, FPStewy said:

The good/bizarre thing about a this old default ATC which no other payware ATC seems to have mastered is that it will control traffic around the airport and on the ground, I've seen and heard instances where I was on com1 for tower and com2 for ground where ground told traffic to wait while I was incoming and/or sometimes tower telling me to follow others in or telling other planes to follow me in.

You know, I was thinking a bit more about this, and it occurred to me that one of the things default ATC does well - in addition to sounding natural - is that it gives you the (sometimes) chaotic, improvised side of ATC.  The real-world ATC system is a couple of things - it's rules-based and procedural, but it's also an environment where people negotiate and bargain and come up with solutions on the fly.  Most ATC payware does rules and procedures (and does them much better than default) - which is understandable, because those things can be well represented by a computer program.  The human side, on the other hand, would be a massive programming challenge, maybe not achievable in the context of a PC-based flight simulator (though the X-Plane guys have said they want to try).  Default captures some of that, partly because it's so weak on procedures, and partly because it's trying to sort out the AI ( @jabloomf1230 - haven't tried VOX ATC - maybe it does some of that, too).  It's fun to have some interaction with the traffic, and it can certainly be a lot more fun to get vectored by default than to let the airplane fly the published approach. Now if only there was a way to avoid the slam-dunk approaches and the twenty-mile finals...

Speaking of X-Plane - over there, I've been enjoying self-vectoring accompanied by X-ATC-Chatter.  A bit repetitive the way those things tend to be but it provides some atmosphere in a different way.

It's pretty clear that no software is going to be the equivalent of live online ATC - unfortunately, I've got too many household interruptions to be able to take advantage of it.

On 7/13/2019 at 8:12 AM, joepoway said:

Pilot2ATC or Radar Contact 4. I started with default ATC then migrated to PF3 then went to free version of RC4 and now have stuck with Pilot2ATC.

Joe

When I use it, these are my choices also.

Vic

19 hours ago, Alan_A said:

it can certainly be a lot more fun to get vectored by default than to let the airplane fly the published approach.

I did a test flight from KSFO - KPDX with default ATC with no sid or star and it was pretty good. Another thing that is interesting is when you request a full stop and it give you an ILS is to request the RNAV with Transition to the same runway.

I did a full flight yesterday from CYUL-KSFO with ATC and everything was perfect until the TOD where it wanted to start vectoring me in without a care for restrctions, so I cancelled ATC did the star and reconnected to tower as soon as I saw it on the list with full stop, if it gives you 28R just request 28L and everything turned out perfect. If only it could do the star it would be perfect.

Pilot2ATC makes it pretty easy. Make your flight plan in Simbrief. Then highlight and copy the routing. Paste it into "flight plan import" and add the departure/arrival airports to the beginning and end. Then file and you're ready to go. It's also capable of generating its own flight plans but I don't use that feature so I can't say whether it's good or not.

The biggest pain is when there's a navaid that shares a name with another one somewhere else in the world. Simbrief then generates a north/south coordinate so you can tell it apart from the others. P2ATC doesn't like that coordinate in there and you'll have to delete it before it will accept the plan.

The downside is that sometimes it fails to issue instructions when it should, and you'll fly along in silence for a good while, and then suddenly all the commands it was supposed to be giving you get transmitted rapidfire. Often when this happens the end result is that you start your descent at the wrong time and end up being handed over for final while you're still 10,000 feet above the runway. I wish they'd figure out what causes this, because it gets irritating. That said, it's a fairly infrequent occurrence.

 

 

Sounds like I ought to give Pilot2ATC a look. 

@FPStewy - I’ve been running tests on a short Southwest route from KBWI to KISP. When I flew it with default, ATC kept me at cruise - FL230 - until SARDI, 30 miles from destination. Made for an exciting arrival in a 737. Might have managed it in an MD-80, though. Definitely an argument for cancel, then refile. 

1 hour ago, Alan_A said:

Sounds like I ought to give Pilot2ATC a look. 

@FPStewy - I’ve been running tests on a short Southwest route from KBWI to KISP. When I flew it with default, ATC kept me at cruise - FL230 - until SARDI, 30 miles from destination. Made for an exciting arrival in a 737. Might have managed it in an MD-80, though. Definitely an argument for cancel, then refile. 

can you post your flight plan ?

KBWI PALEO3 SIE J121 SARDI CCC KISP

File for FL230  

Block time is around an hour - maybe 40 minutes in the air. 

SWA flies it several times a day in 737-700s. 

2 hours ago, Alan_A said:

KBWI PALEO3 SIE J121 SARDI CCC KISP File for FL230 

I did the flight with ATC start to finish in a 757 and because there was no star it was quite nice and interesting, it did vector me in nicely to 2000' until localizer ect... on final there was a slow (Orbit 7208 dash-8) then ATC told me to follow the Dash8 when it was clear that I was getting to close ATC told me to go around in order to avoid a conflict.

What altitude did it give you at SARDI?  I had decent vectoring, too, but after the plunge from 230 at SARDI to 2000 at CORAM I wasn’t able to bleed off enough speed, which sounds similar to your experience. 

Maddog might have done it, though. 

It’s definitely an interesting test for any ATC program. A lot happens in a short time. 

12 hours ago, Alan_A said:

What altitude did it give you at SARDI?  I had decent vectoring, too, but after the plunge from 230 at SARDI to 2000 at CORAM I wasn’t able to bleed off enough speed, which sounds similar to your experience.

I think it went from 7000 to 2000 but I watch piloting video's on youtube "Piloting BOEING 757 out of ICELAND" and it's not an issue bleeding speeds with the speed brake when needed and as soon as I'm at 240 it's Flaps1. I'll redo it again and try to make a video of it.

7000 at SARDI is conservative. Decent instructions if that’s what it gave you. Wonder if I missed a descent clearance earlier. I’ll try to refly it later I’m the week - and maybe test again with PRO ATC-X too. 

On 7/16/2019 at 10:23 PM, Alan_A said:

What altitude did it give you at SARDI?  I had decent vectoring, too, but after the plunge from 230 at SARDI to 2000 at CORAM I wasn’t able to bleed off enough speed, which sounds similar to your experience. 

It’s definitely an interesting test for any ATC program. A lot happens in a short time. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-YdeZ8xMY8

I'm still new at this but I did a crappy video of my flight from KBWI to KISP in widescreen with RC4.

@FPStewy - Thanks for posting.  I haven't been near RC4 in years, and I have to say I was really impressed with how it handled you.  It did much better than either PRO ATC-X or default at giving you a realistic descent profile - with the initial descent out of 230 to 140 coming just after the northbound turn off the New Jersey coast.  Compare today's SWA 2277 - almost an identical vertical path.

I was unfair to default in a previous post - I've reflown the route several times, and that first time I clearly missed a descent clearance.  On the whole I'm pretty satisfied with default ATC handling, with the help of a couple of tricks (I now request lower just before top of descent, to get things started).  Of course, as noted, I'm not a procedural stickler and I don't mind being vectored off the STAR - in fact, I prefer it (more hands-on stuff to do).

But I'm going to have to give RC4 another look.  I know @Ray Proudfoot is a strong RC4 supporter and his opinion counts with me.  I remember a few annoyances, such as being yelled at if I didn't quite hit a waypoint.  But on the whole, that came across as a good, error-free and accurate ATC experience.

Credit to you for re-opening the RC4 door, so to speak...

3 hours ago, Alan_A said:

But I'm going to have to give RC4 another look.  I know @Ray Proudfoot is a strong RC4 supporter and his opinion counts with me.  I remember a few annoyances, such as being yelled at if I didn't quite hit a waypoint.  But on the whole, that came across as a good, error-free and accurate ATC experience.

I never liked RC4 because they would yell at you almost immediately if you acknowledged an instruction and then didn't comply within a second or two. Really ruined it for me and I didn't use it for years. Then one day I decided to try it again and had the same experience! Then it hit me... aviate, navigate, and THEN communicate!! All I had to do was start my turn or descent, or what ever BEFORE acknowledging the call. Works like a charm, and I now love it!

I have PF3 as well, but I find their phraseology to be somewhat unrealistic. Real life comms are  quick and to the point, but PF3 tends to be too verbose. For instance, they always say "altimeter IS 29.92 instead of altimeter 29.92. Small point, I know, but this and many other instances of similar verbiage really tend to kill my immersion factor. RC4 is much better in this respect!

Just MHO, of course...

 

Russ

Edited August 15, 20196 yr by b1bmsgt