What ATC and AI do you use with P3D?

[jkeye 152]

23 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

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.

Thanks for suggesting RC4.

I was finally able to install it and try it with v6 after registering a dll file via the command console.

I'm finding it a viable alternative to the default ATC and like the way the dialog shows up in VR.

I have installed the meatwater files which give a variation of voices better than editvoicepack does and will be testing some more in the coming days.

I have been visiting some of the very old posts on the RC4 forum here which suggest it can be voice controlled with multicrew experience so that is promising for me 

Edited September 17, 2023 by jkeye

[JRMurray 214]

On 9/16/2023 at 12:46 AM, Ray Proudfoot said:

AIG and RC4 here.

Me, too.

I've tried just about all of the ATC add-ons, but I keep on coming back to RC4.

[C2615 319]

Stick with default ATC, as it's the only known one for me have good conversation with default AI as well.

I just check out with tower after T/O then don't contact approach/center until after TOD, and don't bother much on their vector/altitude, just find my own way to final and obtain landing clearance.

I use old AIG bgl file so effectively default AI. With AI Flow and AI Ground they are OK.

I once had eye on FSHUD but it requires online so no-go for me.

I were interested with RC4 back then but somehow it refuse to run on my old system, now I have a completely new system maybe I'd give it a try? Does it talk to AI as fluent as default ATC?

Edited September 18, 2023 by C2615

[Ray Proudfoot 8,961]

1 hour ago, C2615 said:

I were interested with RC4 back then but somehow it refuse to run on my old system, now I have a completely new system maybe I'd give it a try? Does it talk to AI as fluent as default ATC?

No, it’s not as fluent as the default ATC but you’ll get sensible instructions, not the great sound quality but poor instructions of the default.

Substance over style every time for RC4 users.

[IanHarrison 522]

"Substance over style every time for RC4 users."

Hear ,hear!

[Doug47 574]

On 9/16/2023 at 2:48 PM, Bob Scott said:

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.

I’ve never seen it offer any headings at all inside 40nm. Ever. I just fly my own approach without hassle. 
Whether I select nothing, or request ILS, VOR or Rnav for instance makes no difference. 

And if it does (never seen it), nothing else is realistic. The ground atc is poor. There’s no departure headings. It will give clearance to higher altitudes but it does that regardless. No restrictions. 
 

That’s it. It feels no different to any default atc I’ve used.  Perhaps it has less features.  I’m only reporting what I’ve seen when using it. 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,961]

@Doug47, have you ensured MakeRwys.exe is up to date and that you’ve built the RC database?

At 40nm out by default you’ll be contacted by Approach and given vectors to fly. You don’t say if it’s IFR or VFR.

[Bob Scott 7,721]

1 hour ago, Doug47 said:

I’ve never seen it offer any headings at all inside 40nm. Ever. I just fly my own approach without hassle. 
Whether I select nothing, or request ILS, VOR or Rnav for instance makes no difference. 

And if it does (never seen it), nothing else is realistic. The ground atc is poor. There’s no departure headings. It will give clearance to higher altitudes but it does that regardless. No restrictions. 
 

That’s it. It feels no different to any default atc I’ve used.  Perhaps it has less features.  I’m only reporting what I’ve seen when using it. 

Then I think you must doing something wrong. 

RC4 gives very good approach vectors (it was the reason I got it in the first place, way back in 2003), and the default standard is a freq change to radar approach control for vectors starting 30-40nm out, unless you specifically file to an IAF and ask for the full approach.  RC4 has successfully vectored me through hundreds of arrivals. 

RC4 doesn't give specific taxi routes, but then most of the programs that do will put you nose-to-nose with taxiing AI acft, or get confused by a wonky AFCAD.  IRL, the vast majority of my taxi clearances didn't include specific routings anyway.

RC4 does give headings on departure to your first filed waypoint as long as you don't have configured it for a departure procedure, in which case it assumes you're flying the published SID while you're within 30nm of the departure field.  To get vectors outbound, you have to have "No Dep Proc" checked in the controller info dialog.

[jkeye 152]

On 9/18/2023 at 6:50 AM, C2615 said:

Stick with default ATC, as it's the only known one for me have good conversation with default AI as well.

I just check out with tower after T/O then don't contact approach/center until after TOD, and don't bother much on their vector/altitude, just find my own way to final and obtain landing clearance.

I use old AIG bgl file so effectively default AI. With AI Flow and AI Ground they are OK.

I once had eye on FSHUD but it requires online so no-go for me.

I were interested with RC4 back then but somehow it refuse to run on my old system, now I have a completely new system maybe I'd give it a try? Does it talk to AI as fluent as default ATC?

I have it running with AIG and it communicates with AI in a realistic way

[Boeingnut 72]

On 9/16/2023 at 12:46 AM, Ray Proudfoot said:

No one using Radar Contact v4? Miles better that the default. It’s free too so I’m perplexed why more don’t try it. Whilst I don’t have v6 it will still work.

AIG and RC4 here.

I still use radar contact. Still the best!!

[jagabom 21]

RCV4 & Ultimate Traffic Live.

Jim

CYWG

[jkeye 152]

5 hours ago, jagabom said:

RCV4 & Ultimate Traffic Live.

Jim

CYWG

Do you have UTL working on v6?

[Patco Lch 1,465]

2 hours ago, jkeye said:

Do you have UTL working on v6?

I do. Just drop the xml into the documents V6 addon folder. Copy from the V5 or v4 addon folder. 

[Shomron 251]

I’ve also used RCV for nearly 20 years, no traffic addon compares to it in terms of realistic vectoring. I was using it with UTL v2.

However I was finding it too predictable after using it so much 🙂 so I’ve recently moved to use FSHud with AIG.

what I like about FSHud is it assigns different SID/STARS which change based on weather. It also gives you taxi instructions and hold points. It still isn’t as good as RC in terms of vectoring and step climbs/descends but it is getting better and better.

 

[Doug47 574]

Sorry everyone, I was confusing myself with using STAR arrivals which it doesn’t understand. 
I was basing my experience on using STARS but manually putting in the waypoints (on shorter flights where the landing runway is usually unchanged from departure). 
But you won’t get any vectors which these arrivals procedures. 
 

Forgive my mistake. 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Doug47