Let me start off by saying that RC3 is a nice upgrade from the MSFS2002 ATC. It took me only about an hour to get everything up and running and to solve the slow voice problem (also I had my key in less than 2 hours). I have flown 8 short flights and here is where I am with RC3. 1.I find that RC3 works very well and other than Avdisp I like how RC works. Its fairly quick and the voices work well. I also like the added effect of the background chatter.2.I have found only a few minor bugs. One is that I now get some odd little static (not intentional RC content) its almost like a clicking in sync with the refresh on avdisp. Its very minor and intermittent, but very annoying when its there and its not ever present when running without RC or Avdisp. The second bug us that when I exit out of MSFS RC3 is still running, but I can

Hello, I am of the same opinion as you are. I had ProFlight98 which I thought was a marvelous start to ATC guidance but that program was not supported by its staff. I had RC2.2 which again I thought had promise even with the inherent flaws. Therefore I was looking forward to RCv3. I was extremely disappointed by this new version. I do not intend to reduce my OS (XP-P) to a second-class citizen in order to make the deplorable RCv3 ATC sounds appear more realistic. They simply are, in my opinion, processed very poorly. I too was under the impression that ATC would play a larger part in overall guidance but that was not to be. I also received no response from the RC folks regarding an ATC problem with their canned 1st demo flight, KDSM---KORD. Therefore my answer is simple. Burnt again. I will simply remove Radar Contact from my machine and use FSNav as the planner and guiding mechanism. CoPilot does well on planning and guidance also. It is my sincere belief that Radar Contact has quite a hill to climb in an attempt to improve the over-all ATC, ie, voice processing capability of the program. By removing this product from my machine I will also have no need for voicing what I think are negatives of RCV3. These negatives should have been caught by an effective Beta Group and implemented by the software people. The targeted Christmas season release date could have slipped but we know what laws govern. Best Regards

i am refunding your money as we speakthe most hurtful thing of all, was your comment about christmas. it shows how little you know doug or i

JDT Folks,Please don

Hi Douglas,I thought your original message was quite clear (if read carefully) and no exception could be taken to it at all. Constructive critcism has always been welcomed and has made RC a much better product than it would otherwise be.Your clarification was, however, much appreciated.Thanks for your support.All the best,John

---

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

no blast taken ;-)better vectoring for non precision approaches? i'm confused. i'm not a pilot, or a controller, but i have 3 of each on the beta team. if you want to practice a vor-a approach, and you ask approach, it will be granted.at that point, at least what i've been told by the controllers and pilots, you are not going to get vectors for that approach. you asked for a specific approach, we assume you have the plate, and you can fly the approach as published.if you want vectors for a non precision approach, choose the runway, and approach will vector you to that runway.let us help you with advdisp. it can be a little quirky sometimes, but it will grow on you.and if you're name is douglas, you can't be that bad, right doug?

I have to agree with you on this JD,In my real life IFR work, it is simple; one of two things generally happen:1. As required, I filed DP's and STARS all the time. Do I get them? almost never (maybe the airlines do)! I get vectored all over the place, KPDX itself is a RADAR DP.2. If you request an approach, and they can do it, you will get clearance for that approach period. They are not going to vectoryou all over the place if you have a published plate. Usually I get direct to (marker,ect..), cleared (app), report established, or somthing along those lines. Either way it is very concise.

" you asked for a specific approach, we assume you have the plate, and you can fly the approach as published."This is how I use MSFS with no ATC. Fly a specific route via airways to the initial approach fix and or feeder route and then fly the full approach as published. RC3 allows me to continue to do this and still have ATC in other portions of the flight, which is great, but for my purposes it

I have to agree with aca-dia here-as mentioned in an earlier post-at least where I fly (in the Detroit @ Michigan area)-when you ask for a non precision approach the controller will usually respond with vectors for the xxx approach. To do it on your own usually requires a seperate request from the pilot.Logically, I would think this is done from a controllers standpoint to get you done with the approach faster and free it up from someone else. I actually only did a couple approaches on my own (full)when training for my instrument ticket 12 years ago-haven't done one since-maybe time to request one!http://members.telocity.com/~geof43/Geofdog2.gif

Mike,In my experience a pilot doing the full approach tends to bugger things up for ATC. I think I have only been assigned a full approach twice in my life and both times MIA Center had a problem with radar and could not see me to vector me. I have requested and flown full approaches many times, but if its busy its not uncommon to have your request denied because ATC cant fit you in with all of the aircraft being vectored for the same approach. I have never been assigned (without requesting it) a full approach anywhere in New England. This is just my very limited experience.Douglas

Your experience level sounds like anything but limited!, and judging by your name, you're a man of utmost integrity ;) :-lol ;)

Let me preface this by stating that I don't have that many hours into RC3 (yet).My experience in RW ATC is that if the controllers sense that the flight is a training flight (or, more likely, if they recognize the N number as a rental trainer) they will vector "direct ABC VOR cleared for the VOR-A approach." If the aircraft is inbound to a final destination (and is obviously interested in landing with minimal fuss) and radar coverage is adequate then they will generally vector for intercept to the inbound leg vs. assigning the full procedure. Or even more common is to receive vectors direct the airport with the intent that the aircraft achieves a visual (assuming known ceiling at or above visual minimums).Perhaps an easy solution would be to give the user an option of either (a) vectors to intercept final or (:( full procedure when requesting the approach. How difficult would this be to incorporate into a patch?Mike, I share the same experience at KPDX (and at K-everyotherbusyairport). There is no way they would assign a DP to a light aircraft; it would mess up the system for too long. Burn kerosene and it's a different storyGreat program and great support. Thanks!

Good call on giving Blais the refund.I'm just a casual observer of this forum and I've already had more than my fill of this dude's attitude. Reminds me of fingernails on a chalkboard. :-boom

>>How difficult would this be to incorporate into a patch?:), but I'm really beginning to feel the 'mid' shift last night :-roll. Takes a little time to recover.Not to worry. I plan a post dedicated to this topic. I do some explaining, and we'll get all realistic do-able expectations documented.

Dennis above stated (in parts)"My experience in RW ATC is....{yada yada}... they will vector "direct ABC VOR cleared for the VOR-A approach. If the aircraft is inbound to a final destination ....{yada yada}... and radar coverage is adequate {AND - they have the time} then they will generally vector for intercept ....{yada yada} .....even more common is to receive vectors direct the airport with the intent that the aircraft achieves a visual"I agree with Dennis above 100% and will add that getting vectored is, nowdays, an expected thing. If I want a full approach {by the plate} I need to actually ask for it.See ya,Kathy.