What ATC and AI do you use with P3D?

[tamba765 55]

VATSIM only, no AI

[trening 3]

AIG and PF3

[Bob Scott 7,781]

I use AIG and Radar Contact v4 for P3D and X-Plane.  RC4 is still the most procedurally accurate ATC add-on for IFR flying, IMHO, it's got a well-conceived and executed menu-oriented interface which doesn't suffer from the constantly misinterpreted radio calls that plague all of the ATC programs I've tried that use voice recognition.  I also have PF3, Pro/ATC-X, and Pilot 2 ATC, but RC4 remains my favorite for ease of use and procedural fidelity.  I use P2ATC in MSFS, as RC4 doesn't work.

RC4 does not issue clearances for SIDs/STARs, that's true, but as mentioned above, you can include a SID/STAR in the flight plan and then fly it as part of the cleared route.  I don't think hearing something like "Cleared the Oscar Zulu Zulu Zulu India One arrival" adds to the realism when compared to just flying the route as filed without a specific clearance for the STAR.

If you do try RC4, there's a freeware audio enhancement pack in the AVSIM library by Nick Schreger (aka "Meatwater") that does a lot for streamlining the concatenation of audio segments, making it clearer and more natural sounding.  And it works a treat on a second computer using Rob Van der Wiele's Showtext utility (available from the "Useful additional programs" section on Pete and John Dowson's website) for displaying the menu window on the second PC.

[klimpen 45]

FS HUD and AIG

[Samaritano 310]

I use AIG and Pro/ATC-X. Ocassionally I use RC4. RC4 is great but it won't let you fly your STAR completely. I just ignore instructions when it wants to vector me miles out. When it instructs me to contact approach I then request an ILS approach and I can keep flying my STAR and approach with no problems.

PF3 is my least favorite followed by FSHud which I ended up getting a refund from Flight1. Never tried Pilot 2 ATC.

[Patco Lch 1,487]

I use UTL for AI but keep the settings quite low. I seldom use ATC, but I do have RC4, and it is quite good. I like to use FS-ATC Chatter and listen to real ATC sound waves while flying. It changes frequency with your radio in the sim. I'm still working on my competence in the FSLab A320 and don't care for any distractions like some AI controller yelling at me.😂

[Luis Hernandez 615]

AIG and PF3 for me. Sometimes tempted to go back to default (+Editvoicepack for the newer callsigns), but all the procedure errors send me back to PF3.

For Ray/Bob/anyone else that uses RC4, how does it deal with airlines with unrecognized callsigns?

Edited September 16, 2023 by Luis Hernandez

[jkeye 159]

3 hours ago, beechcaptain said:

I have Radar Contact 4, PF3 and Pro ATC-X.  I prefer Radar Contact 4, as it is easier to set up for my airline flights and works very well with my setup.  I use PFPX or Simbrief to compile my flight plans, which contain respective SID & STAR waypoint data, so in effect, RC4 is able to keep up with SIDs and STARs on a respective route until vectoring for setup for final approach.  I always select/check the Notams boxes in the RC4 flight setup screen to allow me to get set up on the proper course/heading for the SID on departure and to make sure I am clear of any terrain obstacles during my descent into destination.  All in all, RC4 is the easier and cheaper (free) atc program to use for fsx/p3d pilots!

I also use AIG for my ai a/c,. too. 

How does RC4 behave if the winds and runway flow changes at the destination on arrival-are these taken into account

[Doug47 574]

12 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

No it doesn’t and that was being worked on when JD just terminated any further development. Interesting you fail to mention all the things it does really well such as starting you down at the appropriate point and giving you correct vectors to a 30° intercept to the localiser.

It is specifically an IFR program. I guess we have different opinions on that. I never use it for VFR.

I no longer use it as I found it didn’t do anything like that very well. It feels like a it’s just a ‘climb and descend’ program.
Climb to xxxx. Descend when ready. 

No headings. No vectors. Barely better then default. 

I stopped using it. 
 

[Bob Scott 7,781]

32 minutes ago, Doug47 said:

I no longer use it as I found it didn’t do anything like that very well. It feels like a it’s just a ‘climb and descend’ program.
Climb to xxxx. Descend when ready. 

No headings. No vectors. Barely better then default. 

I stopped using it.

You must be using a different program than the one I have been using the last 20 years.

No headings or vectors?  Absolutely not true.  RC4 not only provides vectors, but it provides the most consistent vectors to final of all I've tried (no constant stream of small heading changes or goofy instructions like "fly heading 137") and it controls climbs and descents stepwise as IRL--it'll issue crossing restrictions if your descent profile is unacceptably shallow.  Sometimes it issues pilot discretion descents for portions of the enroute letdown...but I've seen that IRL many times as well.

It's not perfect (none of them are), but it does a pretty decent job of handling an IFR point-to-point flight.  Because it uses FSUIPC for an interface, it has served multiple generations of platforms, from FS2002 through P3Dv6 today.

And...it's been freely gifted to the community.

[Ray Proudfoot 9,074]

39 minutes ago, Doug47 said:

No headings. No vectors. Barely better then default. 

I stopped using it. 

As a former beta tester and user for the last 17 years I find your comments baffling. As Bob has pointed out it gives you headings to fly once inside 40nm to destination. Prior to that you’re expected to fly what you file.

Try the tutorials again. I’ve been supporting RC in the forum for 16+ years and you’re the first person to describe it that way. Unbelievable comment.

[anzac1977 140]

AIG & ProATC X, Will change back to Vox ATC when updated to work with P3D V6.

[beechcaptain 118]

16 hours ago, Doug47 said:

No headings. No vectors. Barely better then default. 

I stopped using it. 
 

As mentioned after this puzzling post by Doug47, RC4 does a great job of vectoring and if you fail to comply with altitude and/or heading assigned, you will get scolded and told to report to the big kahuna upon arrival at destination.  

Bear in mind, RC4 was created by two chaps who had a ton of atc experience in real life, if memory serves me correctly.  The amount of realism included in RC4 is significant, imho.

[David Vega 348]

RC4 and AIG. 

[Ray Proudfoot 9,074]

2 hours ago, beechcaptain said:

Bear in mind, RC4 was created by two chaps who had a ton of atc experience in real life, if memory serves me correctly.  The amount of realism included in RC4 is significant, imho.

John Dekker was the programmer. Doug Thompson (FAA) and Pete Pitman (ICAO) were the real life ATC experts. There may have been another too. The manual will have the details.

Then you had @Pete Dowsonfor FSUIPC and generating tables of Ai aircraft to be constantly interrogated (plus much more) and finally but still very important a mathematical genius who understood trigonometry in determining where each Ai aircraft was in relation to your aircraft. I’m struggling to remember his name but it will be in the manual.

That’s why it’s so difficult to write a quality ATC program. RC4 was written in VB which is perfectly good enough. Sadly the source code was not released to the community.