Hi their, before I buy Radar Contact V3, would you mind answering some questions? The main one is how realistic is RC v3? If expressed as a percentage, to what percent is RC true to real world ATC? What are the voices like? Is it computer generated like FS and in FLY or are the voices like real life?Is their background chatter between ATC and other aircraft?And lastly, what are the problems/downfalls, what is NOT functional?ThanksRic

anyone?

Ric,I'll answer the objective questions, and will leave those calling for opinions to a more fair audience.Voices are not cmptr generated. There is background chatter between ATC/other aircraft.Many are still waiting for their CDs to arrive, but those who have already run RCv3 and developed opinions (good or bad!), your turn ;).

Hello Rick, You asked a somewhat 'subjective' question and most likely will get subjective, or opinionated responses. I would suggest you follow the numerous threads on this forum and then make up your own mind. The best way to answer your question is to purchase RC3 and give it a go yourself. Wouldn't you agree?Regards

I completed one of the tutorials this morning and I found it pretty realistic. I'm a pilot in real life so I always hated the MS ATC and its many limitations. The voices onm RC3 are recorded voices, but they are a little slower than the MS ATC voices. I DO like the background chatter since they are actual recordings. I'm still messing around with having MS ATC in the background since I like hearing all of my AI traffic as well. I found it a little strange though hearing the controllers with British accents flying out of Des Moines Iowa!! Overall, I'm impressed so far, but it will take several flights to get used to all the features. The controller did yell at me several times during my flight for not being on course! :-eek

Ric,RC follows real US procedures and regulations. Most of these will be the same around the world. Co-developer Doug Thompson and team member Larry Holcomb are professional ATC controllers. They saw to it that strict rules are followed. Team member Peter Pitman is a UK controller and added to the UK and European handling. If it's a percentage, then it follows 95% of the US regs.I don't know what your definition of "computer generated" is, but both RC and FSATC use recorded words and phrases, and both programs piece them together to give instructions. There is no other way to do this.ATC talks with other traffic, although not AI traffic. You have the choice of using canned (pre-recorded) chatter, or RC generated chatter. I prefer generated chatter since it's dynamic.RC will tell you if AI are flying in your path and call both you and him, with his correct callsign.You can hear an example of RC's voices if you go to the Flight Deck RCv3 Page][/b and listen to the Real Audio test flight (ATIS to Cruise), or DL the short wav test file.The only downfall of RC is MS not putting out an AI/ATC SDK. So RC cannot see AI on the ground, issue taxiway instructions, or otherwise control/communicate with AI. RC can see it in the air, however. You can monitor FSATC on Comm 2 though, so you know where it is around you.

Hi Ric,you ask a good questions about real world realism. First as Scott has mentioned, there were numerous "REAL WORLD" ATC controllers involved in the project. If you could have seen the hundreds of messages that the team "arugued" about on what is the correct procedures for air trafic control you would be amazed. There were very few exceptions to real world situations. There are some real issues when flying from the USA to other parts of the world, but we made some hard good choices on how to handle these diffences. For example, in the US we use "ALTIMETER SETTINGS", in other parts of the world it is QNH, not a term used in the USA.Lets talke about your second point. If RCv3 were to adhere to "total" real world ATC regualations, folks would just ignor the program due to complexity and lack of knowledge. Who among all of us have been to a class held by the FAA on ALL FAR "regulations". What you do get in RCv3 is just about as close to the real world you can get in a simulation product. Would it not be fun to have RCv3 only allow a "virtual pilot" to use the program if they could pass the FAA ATC exam. I don't think there are many of us willing to study that hard for a simulation. However, RCv3 will put your knowledge to the test if you screw up (grin)CheersBob Johnson

Not only that, but a lot of things JD and Doug wanted to do weren't possible in FS. So RC is also limited by FS's limitations.

We can't fault MSFS with all the blame. Part of our problem is there's only 26hrs in a day :-). It's just amazing how much time a single feature-add can take, however simple it may seem. Beyond ensuring it works realistically and as designed, you've got to be sure it hasn't broken something else. RC's evolved enough now where there are almost no feature-adds that don't affect at least one other thing.

Nawwww...it's all MS's fault.;-):-lol:-)