Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
guenseli

PRO ATC SR is released - first impressions

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

I’ve narrowed my choice to Pilot2ATC, ProATC, and FSHud, but ultimately I might determine none of them are much better than default and just stick with that. 

sort of like evolution in reverse, clearly these things are difficult  but my diatribe about ai and self-learning mathematical algorithms for any computer game is looking more and more plausible by the day.

Edited by icewater5
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RALF9636 said:

Absolutely.

This is a common misconception of PF3 here an Avsim.

You don't need to input any data of a STAR at all. Just choose the last waypoint at which PF3 should clear you for the approach and then fly whatever route you want to the final. Nothing cumbersome about that at all.

It never takes me more than one or two minutes to set PF3 up for my next flight.

Of course if you want ATC to guide you through the STAR from waypoint to waypoint and altitude constraint to altitude constraint, then you have to input these data. But - as far as I know - that would be totally unrealistic. IRL ATC just clears you to fly a STAR and expects you to do so according to the charts without any further intervention.

 

 

I remember the days when I used Pro ATC X and it would assign a star, and guide you step by step,  which turned out to be like a bowl of spaghetti, sometimes with you winding up flying into the side of a mountain. Never go back to those days...


spacer.png

Bob Cardone         MSFS 2020 , Fenix A320, Milviz C 310 , Kodiak , Simple Traffic  

TrackIR   Avliasoft EFB2    ATC  by PF3    FlyVirtual.net  CLX PC

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, threegreen said:

I've used PF3 for years. What I mean is putting in the procedure names, top altitutes, missed approach altitudes for every runway that might be assigned, configure every airport I fly into for the first time including minimum FAF altitude and TA/TL and set the procedure transitions, etc.

I never felt the need to do all that. I always leave that blank. The default values automatically calculated by PF3 (based on the airport elevation resp. the region) already give reasonable results.

I agree though I would prefer PF3 to read these data from Navigraph or similar. 

Edited by RALF9636
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, RALF9636 said:

reasonable results

Who likes reasonable results while you know you could have almost perfect results if a developer just would put some extra work in it? 😎 If the data is available an addon that COULD use it SHOULD use it imho. Not using Navigraph or any default database is odd for an ATC addon.

Getting back to ProATC: I will keep an eye on it because even though FSHud does a lot of things right it also does a lot of things wrong and I am getting a bit fed up with it. At this moment istjust isn't a fully fledged ATC solution but more some sort of interactive background chatterbox... the longer you use it, the more you notice its flaws. Like it is great that it won't lose contact with you anymore as it did before (althought it can still happen) but the way they 'fixed' this makes it feel like ATC doesn't really care where you are and just completely ignores you if you do something wrong. While they should be correcting you. I never really have the feeling they are really there, watching where I go. And there are more problems, like the latest version forgetting to switch you to another controller or sending you to the wrong one... my last flights were quite messy... I also don't like that the monthly Navigraph update has to be done on the server side... so you need to get an updated version of FSHud before you can use the latest AIRAC and if the dev is out of town, like he was last week, you just have to wait...! I am not too fond of that server side anyway... So the purchase of ProATC (which is used locally, just like PF3 and P2ATC I presume?) is getting closer day by day... if only the dev could fix those awful voices (in places).

No, the perfect ATC solution isn't there yet.

EDIT
Just saw this video. I didn't know you could get those 'distorted' voices with P2ATC...? Is that a setting? Up to now I think I always heard those very clear computer voices... But more importantly: those Polly voices sound totally awesome...! Does anyone know how much it cost per year if you use this for regular average ATC when you do one flight a day for instance? The information online doesn't make it really clear. It SEEMS to be a more cheap solution...?

 

Edited by tup61

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tup61 said:

Who likes reasonable results while you know you could have almost perfect results if a developer just would put some extra work in it? 😎 If the data is available an addon that COULD use it SHOULD use it imho. Not using Navigraph or any default database is odd for an ATC addon.

Absolutely agree. Hence my above post where I wish for a more proficient and extensive product by a larger group of developers.

I just wanted to share how I make the most of PF3 as it is.

All ATC solutions so far leave a lot to be desired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2022 at 2:22 PM, tup61 said:

I don't think it will be any better. Afaik all available ATC addons only look at the navdata and has no idea of any mountains. As long as an ATC addon keeps itself to follow a STAR etc. it will do fine. As soon as it starts vectoring you without keeping published procedures in its mind you may very well hit a mountain at some point. None of the ATC addon can actually see the terrain.

Nice. In the attempt to NOT let FSHud lose contact with you (the first versions expected you to fly the plan EXACTLY or you'd lose contact completely) they simply deleted the check that looks where you are and hence you never are told you are totally off path. That's a shame. It makes it feel as if ATC doesn't really follow you or cares where you are. Another drawback btw of FSHud is that it uses an online server. Afaik ProATC is 100% local. The FSHud server needs a navigraph update but the dev is out of town for a few days (seriously) so... bummer.

Question: when did ProATC assign the STAR and approach? In time to load them into the plane and check the charts etc.?

I am using FSHud as well and I also had the same opnion about the first versions and also did not understand why is necessary an update in the application everytime the Airac database has a new version.

Other comment I have is about Traffic, FShud can only see and control the traffic that is injected by FSHud that at this moment is a big problem in my perspective, for example I am using Real Traffic RealTraffic - Fly with real air traffic (flyrealtraffic.com) and PSXT Really live traffic in your Flight Simulator (lekseecon.nl) to inject real traffic in MSFS in this scenario FSHud cannot even see the traffic is like the traffic does not exist. 

In my point of view the ATC should at least see traffic that are injected by other applications, if we rely only the traffic that is inject by FSHud is a big constraint because I do not believe taht a tool can handle both things in a good way.

Today FShud traffic injection is very poor !

Sérgio

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This could be the dumbest question in the history of Avsim (but hey/ho it is monday), just why does an atc program and ai traffic interconnect. Surely any ai traffic has to be 'standardised' for want of a better word.

Thankyou sergio for your information (working right now and a bit distracted )

total guess is that people running external atc programs and have realistic voice sets (audio that i mean ) but they not make sense to the actual flight environment where they are ... even so thats good thats a start i guess

Edited by icewater5
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, icewater5 said:

This could be the dumbest question in the history of Avsim (but hey/ho it is monday), just why does an atc program and ai traffic interconnect . No way will a atc program get written good iff it/they are interfacing to a 'variety' of different ai traffic movements/programs/manouvers whatever.

I ask the same question every day, in the begining I tought it was a good idea but after use the application during sometime I was convinved that this is at least a error in the design of application, because you are limiting your options and making the ATC program too complex and not but focus in what is important.

There is a setting in FSHud where you can define the number of aircrafts that will be injected by the application (Parking Application max amout and Acrive aircraft max amount), the maximum number you can add is 60 in each, the problem is that today I tested in several scenarios and not too much traffic are injected.

The traffic that is injected by he application rely in AIG AIM (based in aircrafts and flight plan), but something is not working in the same way as AIG Traffic Controller does because comparing both solutions I always get more traffic with AIGTC with FSHud very few :(.

The interface of FSHud is quire good and simple and developer is always reading the Forums and try to improve but for me does not make sense an ATC application does not recognize the traffic that are taxing if they are not injected by FSHud, using the PSXT and Real Traffic I get a lot of traffic for instance taxing in KLAS, KLAX, KBOS, KJFK but FSHud cannot see anything.

For me is clear that an ATC Application should always try to rely in the Traffic that are injected does not matter if by MSFS directly or other application such as AIG TC or PSXT for intance.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use Pilot2ATC with atc chatter and I paid for some extra voices from a pack some time ago. Makes a huge difference and it doesn't vector me into a mountain. If would have known about this or cared enough I would have bought this in my xp days

  • Like 2

X Hero:::2080Ti:::32GB RAM:::8086K:::FSW Chancellor:::CRJ:::JF Arrow Series:::DC-6:::C-22J:::EA-7:::EMB 110:::Milviz Porter:::Kodiak and Zenith:::Seneca:::GotGravel etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, sergioherculano said:

I ask the same question every day, in the begining I tought it was a good idea but after use the application during sometime I was convinved that this is at least a error in the design of application, because you are limiting your options and making the ATC program too complex and not but focus in what is important.

There is a setting in FSHud where you can define the number of aircrafts that will be injected by the application (Parking Application max amout and Acrive aircraft max amount), the maximum number you can add is 60 in each, the problem is that today I tested in several scenarios and not too much traffic are injected.

The traffic that is injected by he application rely in AIG AIM (based in aircrafts and flight plan), but something is not working in the same way as AIG Traffic Controller does because comparing both solutions I always get more traffic with AIGTC with FSHud very few :(.

The interface of FSHud is quire good and simple and developer is always reading the Forums and try to improve but for me does not make sense an ATC application does not recognize the traffic that are taxing if they are not injected by FSHud, using the PSXT and Real Traffic I get a lot of traffic for instance taxing in KLAS, KLAX, KBOS, KJFK but FSHud cannot see anything.

For me is clear that an ATC Application should always try to rely in the Traffic that are injected does not matter if by MSFS directly or other application such as AIG TC or PSXT for intance.

 

Do a good ATC add-on, or AI Traffic add-on but not both. It’s foolish to think that both can be mastered by a solo or small dev team. Do one thing, and do it well, or don’t do it.

FSHud is doomed to fail in my view because it’s overly ambitious and will likely fail at both tasks. AI traffic is way to immature at this point to build anything that depends on it. 

Edited by Virtual-Chris
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, GodAtum said:

I use Pilot2ATc atm, it it worth swapping over?

I don’t think we know enough yet. We need some YouTuber to step-up and do some kind of review between these options to get some clarity about their strengths and weaknesses. So far there is no clear winning solution… except maybe Pilot2ATC just because it’s well known. So don’t switch… yet, unless you plan to do a thorough review of each 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as MSFS/Asobo does not significantly improve the whole ai engine, all ai/atc add-ons will have their flaws.


- Harry 

i9-12900K (12 Cores, 16+8 Threads, max 5.2 GHz, Aorus X 360 AIO H20, ASUS Z690 ROG Strix F), 32 GB RAM (DDR5 5200, CAS 38), RTX 3090 (Alpacool Eiswolf 360 AIO H2O).  Windows 11 Pro (1TB M.2 SSD C drive).  MSFS 2020 (MS Store, installed on C, MSFS Content on seperate 2TB M.2 SSD).   P3Dv5.3 (1TB M.2 SSD).

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, GodAtum said:

I use Pilot2ATc atm, it it worth swapping over?

Don't think so but it depends on what you want and what's important to you.

To me voices are important and imho only FSHud has good voices (though not much) out of the box. Best of the bunch imho. P2ATC only sounds (absolutely) great with Polly voices and (to me) only if you use the trick to make them sound as if they come out of a radio. The voices in PF3 and ProATC are awful and ProATC may be the worst at this moment: sometimes it seems as if one sentence is being pronounced by three people. It's a total mess.

I also like ease of use: install the app, load a flight and fly. Again FSHud is king here. ProATC is second once you have everything installed properly (loaded the database etc.). PF3 and P2ATC require more input (although you get the choice to limit the input or go all out if you want to). FSHud and ProATC both have straight Simbrief import (connected to your SB-account): P2ATC can import SB-plans too but I am not sure if it can do it with one click or if you have to load a downloaded plan and I really don't know about PF3.

Obviously realistic terminology and guidance also is important. Afaik P2ATC has by far the most options of things you can 'say' to ATC. In FSHud and ProATC you can mainly 'say' what's next in the flow and there aren't many choices to be made (which can be a good thing). Don't know about PF3. They all seem to do things a bit different... perhaps they are all basing their terminology on different countries or regions...? I don't really know which addon actually uses the most realistic terminology.

And AI, well... AI itself is a problem already. FSHud comes with its own 'traffic manager': you have to disable all AI and then FSHud will inject and control traffic completely. Great in theory, not so great in practice. It simply doesn't work yet as it should. The other addons don't control traffic at all but they all have a way (afaik) to make sure AI won't get in your way.

I think most will agree there isn't a winner yet. Some like P2ATC, some like PF3, some like FSHud and some like ProATC. Pity you can't try them all for free... but even then I doubt if I would be able to pick a favorite. Someone should combine the best parts of them all into one app, really. ;)

 

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tup61 said:

 

Thanks for this nice comparison of all the ATC options.

Let me add some things about PF3:

6 hours ago, tup61 said:

 The voices in PF3 ... are awful.

I strongly disagree with that.

PF3 has 120 different voices with different regional accents and with radio noise effects. Almost all of them sound very good to me. Unfortunately the 4 voices that come with the demo are not the best ones. So maybe you based your assessment just on the demo (given that you say you don't know about PF3 regarding some other features). To me the voices are a big advantage of PF3 compared to other options - buth then again this might be just personal taste.

 

6 hours ago, tup61 said:

PF3 and P2ATC require more input (although you get the choice to limit the input or go all out if you want to).

After you have set all options in PF3 once and for all (and you can have different presets, for example for IFR or VFR flights) ,you can set up a flight in PF3 within one minute.

 

6 hours ago, tup61 said:

... Simbrief import  ... I really don't know about PF3.

PF3 reads a .pln-file (which of course can be produced by the SimBrief Downloader with one click).

 

6 hours ago, tup61 said:

... realistic terminology ...  Don't know about PF3. ...

I'm happy with the terminology in PF3 (and it received some improvements during the latest updates).

 

6 hours ago, tup61 said:

... options of things you can 'say' to ATC ...

Not just a strict flow in PF3. You can ask for directs, higher or lower, clearance to final at own discretion, different runway, change from VFR to IFR and vice versa.

 

6 hours ago, tup61 said:

 Someone should combine the best parts of them all into one app, really. 😉

 

That would be a good start. ;-)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...