RT License - Standard or Pro?

[Divij]

Hello, 

New user for PSXT with MSFS 2024 and really enjoying it. I have a couple of questions which I couldn’t find the answer to (even in the manual).
 

I use the Sim Time feature with the RT Pro license. Usually about 2-3 hours behind. Am I right in understanding that I need the pro license to use Sim Time? Or is this feature available in the standard RT license as well? 
 

Also I read on RT’s website that I need the pro license to use PSXT’s destination pre-filling. Is this feature not there on the Standard license?

Any help will be appreciated, thanks!

 

Edited April 5 by Divij

[AbrahamGR]

Hello. Im a user of PSXT and RT ProLicense.

This binomial is very good and recommended if you want to see exactly the planes in the sky and at the airport. Indeed, the PTonly option is recording the planes that land at the destination before arriving.

The bad news is that RT and PSXT have coverage only in some airports, but not in others. So, when you fly to some, you find yourself surprised that there is nothing. Or also that they appear and disappear intermittently, which is horrible for the immersion.

there is a page where you can see the airport with good coberture or poor one. 
its still needed to have better coberture for regional airports,all over the world. 

[kiek]

5 hours ago, Divij said:

I use the Sim Time feature with the RT Pro license. Usually about 2-3 hours behind. Am I right in understanding that I need the pro license to use Sim Time? 

Indeed. That info can be found at at the RT web site, because it is an RT function.

5 hours ago, Divij said:

Also I read on RT’s website that I need the pro license to use PSXT’s destination pre-filling. Is this feature not there on the Standard license?

Destination pre-filling is in PSXT called ParkedTraffic (PT, see the Manaul 11.12). To my understanding it is available in the standard license too, at least I'm not blocking that function for standard license users, but I'll have to check that with RT.
Do note that Parked Traffic is only available in PSXT and PSXT_P3D, not in PSXTraffic and PSXTraffic_P3D.

Edited April 5 by kiek

[Divij]

Thank you for clearing that up! And also for this incredible utility! 

[kiek]

3 hours ago, AbrahamGR said:

The bad news is that RT and PSXT have coverage only in some airports, but not in others. So, when you fly to some, you find yourself surprised that there is nothing. Or also that they appear and disappear intermittently, which is horrible for the immersion.

there is a page where you can see the airport with good coberture or poor one. 
its still needed to have better coberture for regional airports,all over the world. 

This is not really an answer to the OP's first post, is it? Please start a new thread if you want to post an opinion. Thank you.

About your remark. You have too high expectations for what you are paying for.  "Regional airports, all over the world" Any ideas what that would cost?

Balthasar from RT could maybe subcontract better sources then the current ones, but then the subscription fee would become much more expensive. At least much too high for the average flight simmer.

Enjoy the good airports I'd say!

And remember, airborne traffic is less vulnerable to distortions. RT has added oceanic traffic, based on satellite data, too last year (if you fly with a 2 hours offset). So enjoy the traffic at your TCAS!

 

[AbrahamGR]

2 hours ago, kiek said:

This is not really an answer to the OP's first post, is it? Please start a new thread if you want to post an opinion. Thank you.

About your remark. You have too high expectations for what you are paying for.  "Regional airports, all over the world" Any ideas what that would cost?

Balthasar from RT could maybe subcontract better sources then the current ones, but then the subscription fee would become much more expensive. At least much too high for the average flight simmer.

Enjoy the good airports I'd say!

And remember, airborne traffic is less vulnerable to distortions. RT has added oceanic traffic, based on satellite data, too last year (if you fly with a 2 hours offset). So enjoy the traffic at your TCAS!

 

In reality, at no point did I intend to give an opinion that would upset anyone. I simply expressed my impressions of these wonderful products, and their shortcomings.

That said, it would also be nice if they didn't jump to conclusions about what users can or cannot afford. Balthasar could hire better sources, and he can do so, and it's more expensive. Why not?

On the other hand, I still believe that airport traffic coverage is poor. Really, more than an opinion, it's a fact: it's at this link: https://www.flyrealtraffic.com/coverage.html

I love it, but you also have to know how to point out its shortcomings. That's why we're improving.

This isn't the first time I think I'm helping, and suddenly I get told off. Hehehe

Thanks!!!

[kiek]

14 hours ago, kiek said:

at least I'm not blocking that function for standard license users, but I'll have to check that with RT.

@DivijChecked with Balthasar, and yes you can have Parked Traffic (destination filling) with a standard license too. 

[kiek]

11 hours ago, AbrahamGR said:

This isn't the first time I think I'm helping, and suddenly I get told off. Hehehe

In this thread your opinion was not really helpful by pointing an enthousiastic new comer at the short comings of PSXT ... 😉 

It is in your own interest that we get more users. More users make it possible for Balthasar to contract better sources. On the other hand less users will lead to higher fees and at the end RT may even go out of business, because RT is only a hobby of Balthasar.

11 hours ago, AbrahamGR said:

On the other hand, I still believe that airport traffic coverage is poor. Really, more than an opinion, it's a fact: it's at this link: https://www.flyrealtraffic.com/coverage.html

There's no need to point at that, everybody in this forum knows that. Actually I publish a list of quality factors about airports every week. The status is in a fixed post here. There you can see where are the good airports and where the bad ones are. That is completely transparent.

Edited April 6 by kiek

[kiek]

11 hours ago, AbrahamGR said:

That said, it would also be nice if they didn't jump to conclusions about what users can or cannot afford. Balthasar could hire better sources, and he can do so, and it's more expensive. Why not?

Flight simmers are not particular keen on paying for products/services, are they? Look at all the current discussions about the paying schema's for SI and BATC. Look at the all the people that were angry that Microsoft let them pay for a new MSFS version ("after 4 years"). Subscriptions are also not very popular. People expect to pay once and then get live long updates.. 
Also in this forum a lot  of complaints about the "high" RT standard license fee , although it is only one time less to the cinema or two drinks  in a dancing, per month 😉 

No, higher fees is not the way to go, I'm afraid.

Edited April 6 by kiek

[AbrahamGR]

1 hour ago, kiek said:

Flight simmers are not particular keen on paying for products/services, are they? Look at all the current discussions about the paying schema's for SI and BATC. Look at the all the people that were angry that Microsoft let them pay for a new MSFS version ("after 4 years"). Subscriptions are also not very popular. People expect to pay once and then get live long updates.. 
Also in this forum a lot  of complaints about the "high" RT standard license fee , although it is only one time less to the cinema or two drinks  in a dancing, per month 😉 

No, higher fees is not the way to go, I'm afraid.

In conclusion: “dear user AbrahamGR, shut up because, even if you pay for a professional license, you do not have the right to give us your evaluation of the products, because if so we can lose customers.”

😬

[kiek]

2 hours ago, AbrahamGR said:

In conclusion: “dear user AbrahamGR, shut up because, even if you pay for a professional license, you do not have the right to give us your evaluation of the products, because if so we can lose customers.”

😬

Indeed 😉

EDIT:  maybe a good idea to post your comment about missing airports in the RealTraffic forum:  RealTraffic Forum - Index page

Edited April 6 by kiek

[AbrahamGR]

1 hour ago, kiek said:

Indeed, haha 😂 

Thank you for your wise words, master. Divij, This is what awaits when you have a small unfavorable opinion.

🤫😁

[somiller]

I'm finding the ignore feature to be one of things I use most on avsim.