Hello guys,I've just had a look into the RC3 Manual and I have to say I'm pretty impressed. :-) However before I can place my order I have to ask several questions, so here we go....1) How does RC3 handles ATC outside the US? I'm living in New Zealand and the rules are quite different. (i.e. NZ does not have Class B airspace)2) Does RC3 support 3rd-party AFCAD files? 3) I do not have a credit card, (E-commerce would do me no good here) so I must send a money order. Is there some sort of ordering form that I can fill in? If so please e-mail it to [email protected]

1) i'll let the aussie beta tester answer this. but as far as class b airspace goes, i guess you could say i'm class agnostic. you set the frequencies up front. you control which controllers are present at each airport in your flight plan. the atc is handled accordingly. if there is a situation where NZ'ers do it one way, and USA controller do it another way, RC will do it the USA way. but i don't think you will see that much difference2) how does afcad relate to rc. isn't that scenery files?3) emetrix (our order processing site) handles many different ways of payment. at the bottom of the order page, click "other ordering options"

RC has nothing to do with AFCAD or vice versa. It's used to add AI gates for FSATC.

One aussie beta tester coming up :-wave1. In Australia too we don't have Class B. It is difficult to answer your question because what we have done in RCv3 is not include specific classes of airspace - rather allowed the user to include or not include terminal controller positions like Ground, Tower, Approach etc for your departure and arrival airports. This then determines if you're operating in controlled areas or not. Of course if you climb high enough, you'll "get controlled" in Class C. In RC, the airspace structure is divided into horizontal sectors, which you'll often hear being refered to as the low- high- and super-stratums, along with terminal areas. These basically form the different airspace classes as you find in real life.To be specific about your question, it really doesn't matter in the case of flying with RC because RC doesn't cater for VFR with this version. Class B is one of those funny classifications where VFR is controlled as if they were IFR, but a intensive clearances are not req like as in Class C. While airspace structures vary widely around the world, I don't think you will have a problem with RC. I guess it would be closest to flying IFR in our Class E.2. The only things I can think of why AFCAD comes into play with RC is gates and taxiways. RC allows you to input the gate number you are leaving from, and the one you are set to arrive at. With this, when calling Ground for push or taxi, the gate number you inputed are used. With taxiways, RC Ground doesn't give you instructions for which taxiways to use. It would have been impossible for us to code it all in for every single airport in the world to have this capability. You can have any AFCAD installed, but RC won't look at it.I don't mean to sound negetive, it really is a great addon to make flying much more realistic. Do not worry about the airspace classes, you will not find it differing enough to cause any problems.Hope this helps,Subs

---

http://www.jdtllc.com/images/RCbeta.jpg

To add to Subs' great answer, if you want to take off from the runway that FSATC is using (and it is almost 100% wrong to an airport's layout), then you can request that active from RC from Ground, then request taxi from FSATC to taxi to that runway. This information is in the RC manual.However, if you want to use a better runway than what FSATC uses, you can't do that. Some people have put out files that correct the runway asignments at some airports.

>With taxiways, RC >Ground doesn't give you instructions for which taxiways to >use. It would have been impossible for us to code it all in >for every single airport in the world to have this >capability.The thing is, you wouldn't have to. Microsoft didn't. The built-in ATC and AI aircraft "intelligence" reads the AFD information, decides on the correct runway, and calculates the taxi route. As long as the AFD layout is of a good quality, the logic works well. Not being a programmer, I have little idea how difficult it would have been to re-invent the AI algorithms, but the number of airports is not the problem.A lot of efforts are made by the community to improve AFCAD layouts world-wide, so it would have been great if RC3 were able to utilize this updated information.Oh well, I'm sure RC3 is great anyway. Anxiously waiting for the postman...