Proflight 2000 Emulator coming : realistic ATC for FSX and Fs9 ! !

[GSalden 4,657]

Within a short time, Oncourse Software , wellknown for its Flight Deck Compagnion and FDC Live Cockpit will release Proflight 2000 Emulator.This is a standalone ATC program for Fs9 and FSX.It has lots a features to make ATC flying very realistic.To make it even more realisic it can be used icw speech recognition, so you can actually interact with ATC by speaking to the controllers.Features : 1. PFE does not produce FS Adventures. It is a standalone program written in Visual Basic 6 and VB.NET2. PFE provides an all new runways database using data from FS9 or FSX3. Supports multiple flight planners (including FS9 and FSX when using the PFE flight plan converter)4. Active AI detection (both air and ground traffic) during takeoff and approach5. Transition levels can change dependant on your geographic location6. Configurable Transition Altitudes for each of the 26 ProFlight geographic regions7. Altimeter calls can also be made in Millibars as 1013 rather than 29.928. Use ProFlight

[rhodges 6]

Great News Gerard!I had the earlier version and the FS2000 Version. Was also able to modify the FS2000 Version for FS2002, but never was successful with FS9. Never thought to try it with FSX, but will sure be watching out for when the new compatible version is available.Will the single version work both on FS9 and FSX, or are they two different purchases?Thanks again:RTHEdit: I have the old version of FDC along with the latest patch, but am unable to install it. Used it for years, and reinstalled many times. Can't really remember where the error message pops up, but installation would not complete. Unfortunately, FDC had nothing to offer as a solution. I have hesitated to purchase the newest version in the fear that it may not install either on my system. I may rethink this. Time will tell

[Guest UlfB]

Gerard,Very intresting!Two questions that I hope you can answer:1. Do you have to create a FSX flightplan and load into PF?2. Does PF ATC only support IFR?Ulf B :-)

[aerdt 0]

Absolutely exciting news! I was a huge fan of ProFlight 2000 back in the days and it looks like the new and improved ProFlight will follow its legacy. It is about time that someone breathed new life into ATC.Y-A-Y!Pat

[Guest triangle]

Is this an alternative to Radar Contact? Any ideas about how it might differ in functionality etc?ThanksAndrew

[Bruce Nicholson KMFR 20]

There will be many questions regarding this release. A good place to start is the AVSIM review on PF2000 at http://www.avsim.com/pages/0900/pf2k/pf2k.htmlNext, I'd suggest reading Dave's new web page on PDE at http://www.oncourse-software.co.uk/pfe.htmI'm sure there will be more questions beyond the information provided, but those two links should cover most of the FAQs.Bruce

[aerdt 0]

Yes, it is/will be an alternative to Radar Contact.I think the biggest difference is that there are a lot of regional voices (in PF2000: 30) and both IFR/VFR support (Radar Contact: only IFR), support for more flight planners (Radar Contact: only FS9/FSX), better vectoring (tbd) and a cleaner interface (judging from the screenshots).Here is another review of the original PF2000:http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/review/pf2k/pf2k.htmPat

[Guest triangle]

Interesting. I love Radar Contact - it adds enormous depth and realism to the sim though, of course, many more regionalised vocies would be great (I fly in Australia) and a greater variety of chatter would also be good (there are only so many times in one flight you can tolerate hearing a pilot being told about some military exercise that's underway) ;-)Andrew

[Guest jshyluk]

What I remember from Proflight 2000 a was that it had a sophisticated ATC, but (big pause here) the downside was that your flight plan had to be pre-rendered. It wasn't so great for simulating a spontaneous hop from airport to airport. You basically could not deviate from your flight plan, although you could declare an emergency, and the ATC would divert you to a pre-determined airport.Remember, though, that FS2000 had no AI aircraft, or at least ones that flew flight paths. Proflight 2000 was at the time the best way to simulate a "busy" sky. Nowadays, AI flights are generated by the hundreds in FSX.Still, the ATC in Proflight 2000 was remarkably complex for the time, and it should stand up well as an alternative to Radar Contact. It handled a lot of "precision" ATC commands, like SIDS/STARS, emergencies, holds, and go-arounds that the FSX ATC still has trouble with. The upside is that any computer that runs FSX would be a like the HAL 9000 to a computer that ran FS2000. What took my old FS2000 rig 15 minutes to compile by way of a Proflight 2000 flight plan ought to be near-instantaneous by now. I remember making sandwiches and eating them while I waited for Proflight 2000 to compile a flight plan. Those days are gone, I hope. I am looking forward to the new Proflight!Jeff ShylukAvsim Product Reviewer

[aerdt 0]

Very nice observation. It seems that the FSX emulator will not interact with AI in flight, but substitute the missing interaction with pre-rendered chatter. However, it does interact with traffic on the ground and upon arrival/departure (which Radar Contact does not do).Basically, it doesn't bother me, because default FSX ATC AI interaction is lame at best by not vectoring traffic around each other like in real life, but having to announce and acknowledge each others position.I also don't mind a pre-rendered adventure, because usually you really just fly from point A to point B in IFR and FSX ATC for VFR is not *that* bad for VFR flight anyway.Pat

[Guest jshyluk]

Bingo! I totally agree with you, Pat. Proflight 2000 was really fantastic for simulating passenger flights -- you're not supposed to deviate from your flight plan anyway, and if you had to because of weather or other issues, the program was smart enough to give you ATC cues back to the ground in a safe way. Jeff ShylukAvsim Product Reviewer

[Guest radivil]

>but having to announce and>acknowledge each others position.If they even do that. I didn't see this guy sneaking up on me until it was almost something that my next-of-kin would get a bad phone call about. I wish some sort of vectoring around would have happened instead of "traffic alert!" after he was already behind me.

[Orlaam 306]

Wow!!! This looks/sounds amazing! The fact it'll work in FS9 and FSX is a big plus. Looks like they have thought of everything too.I'll be honest and say as a user of RC4, I haven't been using it lately for a few reasons. I always wanted RC to have SID/STARs we could program in like the FMCs or whatever. It's not that difficult to look at a chart and put waypoints into your flight plan that tells the ATC ahead of time what altitudes you expect to get. RC4's team seems to think I'm asking for a profile descent and I'm not. Here's my example:You're flying into KLAS from KPHX. Your plan almost always take you over a 5,000 or 7,000 foot mountain range. In RC4 you have to check NOTAMs and always get the same long warning about terrain avoidance. I contend that allowing the user to input altitudes into the waypoints would allow the user to navigate over the mountains as if ATC knew they were there. If left blank, then ATC will instruct normally. This would allow the user to simulate SIDs and STARs, along with giving us control over the route. RC4 will give lateral control, albeit late IMO, but no vertical control except NOTAMs. The only thing I'd like to see besides the vertical control is an earlier option to fly your STAR. In RC4, you are given instructions to descend and sometimes turn before you can ask for the approach. If preprogrammed into the ATC with the SID and STAR option, one should have that option depending on the winds. I think it could be done. Similar to RC4, but not having to ask for the approach unless the weather calls for it.Another problem in RC4 was very close to MS ATC. Often times, depending on the approach to the field, the user is left way too far away and too high to land. This would actually happen at KATL when approaching from the downwind direction. The only way to get around it supposedly is to request a short final. Fine, however, if you don't want a short final, you won't know until you're left 25 miles from the runway, off-course from the ILS, and 2500 feet too high to do anything about it. If visibility is poor, then you have no choice but to pull up the map or mess with the ND to find your way. Happens too many times in RC4 IMO, and I rebuilt the database using only default scenery a lot. KLAS did this to me as well- way too far from the ILS to intercept.Also, thank for the volume control.

[Max Kraus 339]

>Another problem in RC4 was very close to MS ATC. Often times,>depending on the approach to the field, the user is left way>too far away and too high to land. This would actually happen>at KATL when approaching from the downwind direction. The>only way to get around it supposedly is to request a short>final. Fine, however, if you don't want a short final, you>won't know until you're left 25 miles from the runway,>off-course from the ILS, and 2500 feet too high to do anything>about it. That's my biggest problem with RC4 too. You're almost always left too high. That and the robotic voices, but I feel nothing can be done about that. I actually get most enjoyment with NO ATC now.

[aerdt 0]

RC4 is great, but even after all those years it still lacks ground traffic control and VFR. There were numerous times when I taxied around and got t-boned by another plane, although I did look carefully. SID/STARs? Not really present, because RC ATC just stays mute until you're on final - which is similar to FSX ATC.The interface of RC4 reminds me of a Windows 3.1 interface and the voices haven't really improved. I'd really rather have synthesized voices that are more flexible and easier to customize than audio snippets.All in all, I am excited about PFE2000.Pat