As a former user of the ProATC/X at MSFS for me PF3 works best, need to put in altitude restrictions of the STAR, but at least ATC refers to them.

Lots of complete and good sounding voice sets and only need one hotkey for whole flight, only needed more for requests…

2 hours ago, Puukka said:

need to put in altitude restrictions of the STAR

Which imho is ridiculous. The information is in the data... why can't they let the app read the available data?!? There are more odd things with certain ATC addons, like ProATC needing to load the entire database (also after every airport addition): why can't the addon read the data just tlike that? FSHud does it so why do other addons need stuff like makerunways or whatever before they can work? Are those devs just lazy?

Specially airliner flights take enough preparation time already: the idea of having to manually add STAR restrictions would make flying almost a no go for me. The less input is needed, the better. Which is why I still prefer FSHud. And btw after seeing some more ProATC video's and doing some more flights with FSHud the ProATC voices really are bad imho... very bad in places... up to unacceptable bad here and there. FSHud has the best voices imho but it's clear everyone seems to listen to those voices differently:

  

On 8/10/2022 at 11:27 PM, Virtual-Chris said:

- The voices are probably the best I've heard outside of the default ATC.

  

18 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

The voices sound terrible. Epic fail. 

LOL Need I say more? 😉

Edited August 12, 20223 yr by tup61

3 hours ago, Puukka said:

need to put in altitude restrictions of the STAR, but at least ATC refers to them.

No need when using Pro-ATC/SR with P3D.

16 hours ago, Virtual-Chris said:

So did it assign you a runway and approach on arrival, or you had programmed that into the flight plan?

Of course, even the default ATC can get you up and down on a fairly simple flight plan... the issue is usually with their altitude assignments, so it will definitely be very interesting to see how this performs in the mountains.  

Thanks for taking time to share... it's very helpful in determining where to spend money on an ATC add-on.

Yes, it gave me the runway assignment but I'm not sure if it was due to the simbrief flightplan that has the runway. The departure and arrival runways were into the wind, I wonder if it would change if the winds were different.

This is my second run with the program. This time I wanted to fly into a mountainous terrain location to see how it would handle the descent. There first issue I had was the callsign. I wanted to use one of my old Air Force callsigns which was SAM. It's pronounced as Sam like the name. I couldn't manually type it in. For a while when going overseas, we would be called Sierra Alpha Mike because of a South American airline. Then at some point, they called us Sam like the name on missions. SAM stood for Special Air Missions. Since I couldn't figure out how to add SAM, I just used the South American airline one. Even with that airline, I was called Sierra Alpha Mike. No big deal, I rarely fly in sim with that callsign.

The route was from KDEN to KASE. I picked this route because the RNAV approach into Aspen is aggressive. In fact, when flying G5s or G550s into KASE, you have to be fully configured and on approach speed by the IAF. If you are not configured and on speed by Red Table, you wont make it because the jet will never slow down. In that case, ATC has to descend you early enough and progressively so that you have time to slow and configure. Coming out of KDEN was standard and uneventful. I did let the aircraft stray off the departure a little just to see if I would be caught and vectored back accordingly. ATC quickly vectored me back to course with a nice intercept. As I approached my calculated descent point, ATC cleared me down from 260 down to 15000. That worked with the terrain and MSA around me. What raised my eye brow was the instruction to descend to 12000. I know there was some 12500ft peaks in the area. I did it anyway to see if it would fly me into the ground. I can tell I was low, but I didn't hit anything. I was in the Longitude and didn't receive GPWS alert, but I am unsure of the system modeling in that default aircraft. As I approached a drop off, I was then cleared to 11000. The drop off gave me clearance, but 11000 put me back in that low regime and I didn't hit anything. Now, most operators going into KASE have their own sanctioned RNAV approach. MSFS has a RNAV Y approach to 15. DBL(IAF) has a minimum of 13700 on the approach. As you can see, they descended me down to 12000 and 11000. The terrain around DBL is 11000, but the ATC vectored me to intercept the RNAV inside of DBL(9000 terrain). I didn't hit anything, but that was a bit kooky. In all, I was low enough to shoot the approach, but too low. I will try this again in the Aerosoft CRJ 700 and see if I get the same results.

Being that KASE was kooky, I am going to do a KLAX to KLAS run. I know ATC programs struggle with Vegas because of the surrounding terrain. I will see how the program handles Vegas.

Rick

13 minutes ago, G550flyer said:

I know ATC programs struggle with Vegas because of the surrounding terrain. I will see how the program handles Vegas.

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.

15 minutes ago, G550flyer said:

I did let the aircraft stray off the departure a little just to see if I would be caught and vectored back accordingly. ATC quickly vectored me back to course with a nice intercept.

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.?

22 minutes ago, tup61 said:

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

Yes. It gave me the procedure before my descent in both of my flights. I will see what it does on my way to Vegas.

22 hours ago, G550flyer said:

I did like that the UI is within the SIM. With Pilot2ATC, I have to keep switching back and forth until I'm in the air and the PNF takes over

Just to clarify - this means that ProATC-X uses a window in the sim like those you can open from the toolbar?

10 minutes ago, threegreen said:

Just to clarify - this means that ProATC-X uses a window in the sim like those you can open from the toolbar?

You are right, let me clear this up. You run it separately outside of MSFS. Once you enter MSFS, the UI stays in it's position at the top left. If you are clicking items within MSFS and the cockpit, the UI stays put and never goes out of view. When I use P2ATC, clicking within MSFS makes the ATC UI hide. In this case, I can can operate and the UI is right there for my clicking.

8 hours ago, tup61 said:

.... There are more odd things with certain ATC addons...

Are those devs just lazy?...

... but the dev is out of town for a few days (seriously) so... 

 

Not to belittle the honorable efforts of all these mostly single developers trying to bring up an ATC solution probably in their spare time, but what I wish to see is either a professional company on the proficiency level of Fenix or a highly ambitious group of freeware/open source developers on the level of Flybywire making an ATC product.

Such a group would have to consist of not only flightsim enthusiasts and highly skilled software developers including AI speech experts, but also real world pilots and ATC controllers from all over the world to ensure the accuracy of ATC-procedures including the many regional differences.

A single developer is just not up to the task, no matter how talented or dedicated he is. Creating a state-of-the-art ATC solution that meets the professionalism standards of MSFS and addon aircraft like the Fenix is a much too complex task for a single person. There is a reason why Asobo still did not seriously look after the ATC-system - it is just a massive task.

After all these years we still haven't seen any serious ATC attempt by a larger company, probably because the expected sales numbers would not have justified the necessary massive efforts. I just hope this will change these days, given the much larger user base of MSFS compared to earlier sims. Hopefully someday a real state-of-the-art ATC solution will be available for MSFS.

 

17 hours ago, 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.

Well the mountains are in the navdata (MSA). Pilot2ATC uses this and effectively vectors you around terrain and/or gives appropriate altitudes. Never had any problems with mountains on P2ATC.

MSA data isn't the same as mountain and terrain data. The ATC addons still won't have a clue where mountains are. But you are correct: with MSA the addon should at least know what alt to keep you above in order to keep you safe. Obviously this isn't a problem as long as you fly procedues: only when you get vectored this comes into play. I don't have any real experience yet with vectoring in FSHud: I look forward to hear how well PROATC does this. It's a shame I don't use speech and find the P2ATC interface way too much/busy/over the top. I like the simple 'one button' method that FSHud and PROATC are using. You don't even have to keep the UI on screen with those two. 

35 minutes ago, tup61 said:

I like the simple 'one button' method that FSHud and PROATC are using. You don't even have to keep the UI on screen with those two. 

With Pro-ATC/X this was indeed true, but I cannot find a way, and I don't think there is a way with Pro-ATC/SR (thread subject) to remove the UI,

(In Flight Window) from the screen unless you use a networked system. I suspect most users do not have such a set-up and so are stuck with

it being constantly displayed.

14 hours ago, RALF9636 said:

Not to belittle the honorable efforts of all these mostly single developers trying to bring up an ATC solution probably in their spare time, but what I wish to see is either a professional company on the proficiency level of Fenix or a highly ambitious group of freeware/open source developers on the level of Flybywire making an ATC product.

Such a group would have to consist of not only flightsim enthusiasts and highly skilled software developers including AI speech experts, but also real world pilots and ATC controllers from all over the world to ensure the accuracy of ATC-procedures including the many regional differences.

A single developer is just not up to the task, no matter how talented or dedicated he is. Creating a state-of-the-art ATC solution that meets the professionalism standards of MSFS and addon aircraft like the Fenix is a much too complex task for a single person. There is a reason why Asobo still did not seriously look after the ATC-system - it is just a massive task.

After all these years we still haven't seen any serious ATC attempt by a larger company, probably because the expected sales numbers would not have justified the necessary massive efforts. I just hope this will change these days, given the much larger user base of MSFS compared to earlier sims. Hopefully someday a real state-of-the-art ATC solution will be available for MSFS.

 

PF3 and RC4 which are arguably two of the best available are a single person development shop and a very small group of individuals and turned out phenomenal ATC products.  I still use PF3 in MSFS thanks to Dave March and his ongoing support. 

Yes, it's a massive task but some of the best offerings in the history of FS are developed by a single individual or a very small group of less than 4 people.  

1 hour ago, Sparkrite said:

With Pro-ATC/X this was indeed true, but I cannot find a way, and I don't think there is a way with Pro-ATC/SR (thread subject) to remove the UI,

(In Flight Window) from the screen unless you use a networked system. I suspect most users do not have such a set-up and so are stuck with

it being constantly displayed.

Ouch... that's a pass for me then. There are too many things by now which I do not like about ProATC...