6 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Accurate instructions have far greater importance than what those instructions sound like.

I think I agree but the problem is most of us simmers don\t really know what's accurate when it comes to ATC. BATC and FSHud have some clear differences and I still don't know what's more accurate. Like with BATC it's center that'll give you the STAR near TOD and approach gives you the runway and approach (plus transition) later on when you contact them. With FSHud you get the STAR and the approach and transition in one go quite a while before your TOD. Now which one is correct?

Anyway, I decided to go with BATC in the end because it has both ICAO and FAA ATC and all that automarically (just like it uses the correct QNH automatically). FSHud only has (some sort of) ICAO and you manually have to tell the app what QNH you want. I always had the idea FSHud was more accurate but what do I know... 😉

6 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

People used to refer to Radar Contact voices as “robotic” which is curious as they’re real humans.

Not curious at all because although the voices were human the sentences weren't: they were very clearly and obviously stitched together and that's what made the human voices sound (very) robotic.

37 minutes ago, mistolip said:

I think I agree but the problem is most of us simmers don\t really know what's accurate when it comes to ATC.

That’s where Radar Contact got it right for both ICAO and  FAA phraseology.

For example, in ICAO land British Controllers would say “contact tower on one one eight decimal five” whereas FAA would say “contact tower on one one eight point five”.

We had two real-world AT Controllers who knew the language. Now try your preferred program for a British and US airport and see if you get that difference.

Ask each developer if they differentiate based on FAA / ICAO.

Radar Contact was a great app. I had it on DVD, and I have fond memories of using it with the Level-D 767.

2 hours ago, prolixindec said:

Radar Contact was a great app. I had it on DVD, and I have fond memories of using it with the Level-D 767.

It still is. I use it exclusively with P3D. and with the "meatwater" enhanced voices, the "robotic quality" is all but a thing of the past.

The meatwater voices were a great addition.

After landing, I used to fear the stern telling off RC gave you for missing a crossing altitude or similar.

 

7 hours ago, prolixindec said:

Radar Contact was a great app. I had it on DVD, and I have fond memories of using it with the Level-D 767.

How good were those days. That Level-D was a solid plane

1 hour ago, Max Kraus said:

How good were those days. That Level-D was a solid plane

It's up to each of you to decide what's more important in the sim of your choice. No one said you can have only one. Why not P3D / Radar Contact for IFR and MSFS for VFR. 😉

I'm sure many of you still have your licences for v5 and RC4 is free.

Sorry OOT. Does Aerosoft Simple Traffic work in 2024?

34 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

It's up to each of you to decide what's more important in the sim of your choice. No one said you can have only one. Why not P3D / Radar Contact for IFR and MSFS for VFR. 😉

I'm sure many of you still have your licences for v5 and RC4 is free.

Because MSFS (2020) with the 777 and others like the 737, Fenix, FSLabs, MadDog and PF3 if you choose or one of the other ATC addons with AIG or FSLTL and others is absolutely phenomenal for IFR and you can't even compare graphics anymore.  Even 2020 which may not look as good as 2024 are by FAR the greatest graphical enhancements we have ever had in simming. I'm over Northern Ontario doing KEWR-RJAA right now for 14+ hours in real time and everywhere I Iook out the window is an accurate representation of the real world.  

Soooo  If all the add-ons one used in P3D are now in MSFS it would beg the question why go back...   At least for me there is no reason anymore, I really couldn't go back and I was probably one of the last MSFS adopters... 

I know your Concorde isn't in MSFS but if it was I can guarantee you it would be a better overall experience in MSFS even with the same plane.

Because you asked 😉 

Edited March 27, 20251 yr by psolk

@psolk I could never use a sim as my primary simulator when so much of it is not stored on my own computer. You’re at the mercy of so much not under your own control.

For VFR sightseeing it’s worth a look once the sim is free of so many bugs. Too much invested in P3D to dump it.

12 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@psolk I could never use a sim as my primary simulator when so much of it is not stored on my own computer. You’re at the mercy of so much not under your own control.

For VFR sightseeing it’s worth a look once the sim is free of so many bugs. Too much invested in P3D to dump it.

With 2020 almost everything is local unless you want bing maps or online services.  I don't encounter any bugs, can count on one hand the amount of times connectivity has been an issue, it is far from VFR only.  It has almost 5 years of development under its belt at this point.  Couldn't imagine going back anywhere beyond this.  

2024 is another matter altogether. 

Edited March 27, 20251 yr by psolk

Just now, psolk said:

Couldn't imagine going back anywhere beyond this.  

We all have different priorities. Visuals in P3D are fine for me. I spend most of my flying time checking aircraft systems non more than Concorde which is the most demanding aircraft I’ve ever owned. Plus other software isn’t compatible or available for MSFS like ADE, Aivlasoft EFB to name but two.

3 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

We all have different priorities. Visuals in P3D are fine for me. I spend most of my flying time checking aircraft systems non more than Concorde which is the most demanding aircraft I’ve ever owned. Plus other software isn’t compatible or available for MSFS like ADE, Aivlasoft EFB to name but two.

I think anyone who has known you here for years understands your position on P3D, FSL Concorde and MSFS, I didn't think you were actually considering moving,  I was just pointing out the VFR vs IFR decision is long done... Both are excellent IFR simulators, one just looks like a digital twin of the earth with far better graphics and stellar performance to boot.  Shame about Aviasoft EFB because I also use their RemoteCDU in 2020 with no issues. 

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@psolk I could never use a sim as my primary simulator when so much of it is not stored on my own computer. You’re at the mercy of so much not under your own control.

For VFR sightseeing it’s worth a look once the sim is free of so many bugs. Too much invested in P3D to dump it.

I think quite a few of us are using MSFS2020/2024 for IFR airline flights without any issues. Yes - more stuff is streamed in 2024. But for me that's going to be the scenery only, as I use addon aircraft and airports which are stored on my SSD. Of course ground textures need to be streamed to enable global coverage.

1 hour ago, Cpt_Piett said:

nk quite a few of us are using MSFS2020/2024 for IFR airline flights without any issues.

Please see my previous reply. Each to their own.