Sign in to follow this  
Guest A386

Future of RC ?

Recommended Posts

Hi,what are the future plans of RC ?Will we see a version 4 or so with new features ?Andr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Regarding the future plans of RC, I would like to know if any European version of RC (or a European upgrade, even at a certain price) is planned ? I think, I would even pay again for standalone European version.RC is a great program, far superior than anything else, so it's not meant as critics, just as feedback. It's great for US flights. But I find myself not using it for European flights, because it is simply not immersive (Airspace, some procedures, phraseology different, you guys probably know all that).Of course, also for Europe it is technically far superior than the default ATC (the FS2004 ATC is next to a parody for Europe), but the missing immersion is an often heard comment in German fora.While I'm at it, two questions :1. Is there any chance in future versions to get rid of the dreaded Echo-Delta-Delta-Foxtrott talk e.g. for Frankfurt ? I know, one can not have all Airports names, but probably RC is mostly used by the big iron fans and at least the major big airports in every country could be covered ? If e.g. frankfurt.wav would exist, it would take that instead of using the single letter stuff ?2. There are many European airlines missing (such as Aero-Lloyd, Air Berlin, Hapag-Lloyd Express -callsign excellence-, Germania, Germanwings, Hamburg International, just to mention some German ones, then Easyjet and many more). Can I add them to the list somewhere and make my own wav files for it ? I understand, for voice consistency, I would have to make the entire controller and pilot set then ?ThanksMichael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is it possible to have the RC integrated with the FS ATC system in the future??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, there will be a version 4what would you like to see added? (in order of importance!)jd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with the right help from the experts in europe, i'm sure we can accomodate certain differences1) i suppose. but someone would always be missing their "favorite", but i can look into that2) all you have to do with missing airlines, is put them in an email to doug@jdtllc.com, he is keeping the list of additional wavs to add. then when all the recording "talent" get together to record, they will record the new namesif you want to record your own set of pilot or controller wavs, we'd be more than happy for you to do that. scott campbell is the "recording expert". would you share your recording with all your fellow rc users?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I just fly in the US, my varied site and magazine browsing shows that in other countries the transition levels can vary by locality, and there can be more than two types of stacked transition layers with different rules for each. With 3.1 I know you can set the transition in the Control dialog but for other than US flights you may need a database addition of a field or fields where the transition flight level(s) are defined in your airports file. This would take care of the circumstance where the flight route encompasses areas of different transition levels.Australia/New Zealand is one such area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron,From what I've read, there are areas in the world where the TL/TA and control zones change all the time (even during one day). It's up to the user to know these things. RC couldn't possible know all that. The best RC could do is set one TL setting per FS Nav-based sector. Then I bet even then a lot of users will complain about the many times they have to switch between QNH/altimeter and 1013/29.92.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JD,>> with the right help from the experts in europe, I'm sure we can accomodate certain differencesSounds great ! I'm sure whenever an annoucement of potential European ATC specifics in an Addon would be made in some fora, that would wake up some experts immediately. I have an IFR license myself and while that does not mean I'm an expert, whenever I could help I would surely do. But your manual says you have lots of European testers already, so maybe no need for more experts at all ;)>> but someone would always be missing their "favorite", Yes, but that would be a negative approach then (is the bottle half full or half empty :)). If I would add all the internationally served Airports in the entire Western Europe, that would mean around 30. Add some major holiday destinations and you end up with 10 more. Not sure if that could be handled regarding controller voice sets ? But if RC would only look in a certain directory (Airport wav exists or not ?), that would open it up for customization in this regard.>> would you share your recording with all your fellow rc users?Yes, of course ! Email to Doug with missing Airlines will go on the way.Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, there will be a version 4what would you like to see added? (in order of importance!)Hi jd,You've probably heard most of this from me before but as others are now raising these points perhaps I could add a few comments to their thoughts.Variable TA/TL - If you're going to continue with this option, I'd like to see it working correctly. The input on the controller page needs to be changed to allow the direct input of the published Transition Altitude. Surely it's more logical to allow the entry of the TA as published rather than force the user to calculate a pseudo-Transition Level before entering it? RC, of course, will still need to know the Transition Level but it should get this in the same way it's done for real - by applying the Transition Altitude and current QNH to a look-up table. I know I've sent you several copies of this table over the past 18 months or so but I'll happilly send another if you need it.Transition Altitude Database - I doubt if it would be possible for the RC team to produce one that covered the entire world (!) but to do this for some of the most-used areas/airports would not be impossible. I helped Ernie Alston produce a very basic one for FSBuild2 which used the ICAO code to check for a variation from a default setting. A UK entry, for example, might look something like this:EG=3000EGBB,EGBE=4000EGCC,EGGP=5000EGLL,EGKK,EGSS,EGGW,EGPH,EGPF=6000A lot of work would be needed for not a very great result but worth bearing in mind maybe. I suppose an alternative might be to see if Richard Stefan could provide this info as part of his navdata.Standard European Phraseology and Procedures - I saw somebody offer to provide you with information on "European procedures and phraseology" a few days ago. I'd be intrigued to see what he comes up with as, imho, there ain't no such thing! You have to remember that whereas the US has a Federal authority controlling aviation across the entire area, Europe does not. Although organisations such as Eurocontrol, the JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) and the proposed European Aviation Safety Agency do/will bring some uniformity of practice, Europe is still a loose collection of many different countries each with its own ideas, traditions and laws. It's this that makes it almost impossible to produce a "standard" European version.I think we should also bear in mind that there is a lot more to the world than the US and Europe - I'm sure there are users in many other countries who'd like their ATC procedures included. So, if you are seriously thinking about making RC truly international, then I suggest you use ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices as your yardstick. Even this would not be perfect as individual countries are free to file "differences" - the UK is particularly good (or should that be bad?) at this - but as ICAO SARPs provide the basis of ATC in the vast majority of countries outside North America I think this would be the way to go.Airspace and procedures differences will be very complex (and time-consuming) to implement but phraseology might be a possibility. It wouldn't be to difficult to "translate" many of RC's controller/pilot .wavs to their ICAO equivalents but I think it might end up giving poor Scott a heart attack. He did a brilliant job organising the recording of wav files files for the current version of RC but I wonder if even he might baulk at having to produce two different versions of many of the files!Just a few thoughts for the pot.Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little proposal regarding that Airport names for the big iron drivers. I don't know the inner workings of RC or programming possibilities, so it's just a shoot in the blue. Let's assume, a few "Master" controllers would know sort of everything, means all airlines and maybe 100 international airport names. A lot of stuff of course.Now how could recording of more controller sets be kept to a reasonable effort and size ? These "Master" controllers know a lot of unnecessary stuff. E.g. Air British Columbia or Great Lakes Airlines would never fly out of North America or Germanwings never into North America. If I look into the Airline list, there's a lot of such Airlines included. What if you would split the Airline list into :1. International Airlines. This includes all airlines that fly in and out of North America.2. NA Airlines. This include only Airlines operating inner North America3. Rest of world Airlines.With a bit of research such a list could be maintained.Now RC would include a Controller option. If no entry is made, the "Master Controller" is used. But a US controller or a Rest of world (ROW) controller could be chosen.Now if *I* would record a set, I would record a ROW set. I would not have to record the Airlines in Group 2, saving many wav-files. But I would have the option to include as many "second category" Airport names e.g. for Europe. Once Departure, Destination and Alternates are known to RC, it looks if such wav files (named with ICAO, e.g eddf.wav) exist. For the US controller set, the Airlines in Group 3 would be obsolete. He again could record as many second category US Airport names if he wants. If it's there, Ok. If not, then not, bad luck.Not sure if this create more confusion then it solves, but it would be a nice step forward regarding immersion.Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete,yes, you are absolutely right regarding the not present Standard European Phraseology and Procedures, my request above was only seen through my "German" glasses. ICAO SARPs seem a good proposal, but anyway, that subject leaves a lot to think about. Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my request above was only seen through my "German" glassesYes, I know exactly what you mean, Mike. I'm just as guilty of saying "Europe" when I actually mean the UK which just emphasises the point I was making about the US being one country and Europe being many.As you say, a lot to think about - I shall watch with great interest.Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JD, as I read the suggestions in this thread and other comments in the forum, my bet is that you will in the end (or maybe not too far in the future) have to use synthetic voice. Yes, I well remember voting against it when we gave it a serious beta run. :-) But, looking at all the suggestions, an increasing number are regarding communication in one form or another. As I read them I imagine how much voice recording there would have to be to accomodate everything, and things not thought of yet, and unless you're able to have a dedicated corps of readers available for an ever-expanding set of text files, synthesis is inevitable.Just my thoughts about the future development. RC is still the best thing around for me -- always available when I want to fly, good realism in control, still happily there after my returning from "Pause," and readily willing to be ignored (key 3) prior to shutdown/butt chewing for my trying some new techniques. :-) I never fly without Radar Contact, FSMeteo, and FSUIPC, and I can't imagine doing so. Bob Fiegel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't a hybrid solution be used? Continue to use wav files for often-repeated phrases, but use synthesis based on syllables for airport names etc.EditVoicePack seems to do a reasonable job using this method for extra airlines with the default ATC. Couldn't RC do something similar?Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the best alternative, but if a database can not be used, perhaps an enroute menu item could be added to change the TA for an "informed" user where routes cross such changes.What really would be nice is a flight planner utility could add the field and export in a format that RC would interpert. The choice would be in the flight plan load/import whether to use FS format or said specialized format. I am only using NAV 3.1, but perhaps other planners allow this. Perhaps a planner would export an expanded plan for RC (added fields) and a subset for the FS standard using one command with various options kept in its preferences section. It would make a nice companion product.I've been syncing the NAV 3.1 database with RC's after updating from navdata's site. It would be nice to have a common database for all NAV products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian,Yes, but the actual voice paks are 5000-6000 files in size. So taking phrases or syllables and recombining is fine if you have the internal system FS uses. I have no idea how it's actually done. There are many cue points and segment headers in the files. The work involved is intense. Also, note how MS itself only has 10 total voices - for controller and pilot. RC has more than 10 for controllers alone, many more for pilots.I frankly get irritated that the FSATC controller and pilot are always the same guy/woman. What happened, did they run out into the plane to respond?RC has at most 1134 files and getting people to record those, much less correctly, is a major PITA.Plus, RC does have a lot of actual world-wide features (Center/Control, altimeter/QNH, etc), where MS has none. Listening to FSATC outside the US is a joke, and a joke IN the US as I hear someone 34,000' below me getting vectored to somewhere (just as one example).The voice paks aside, RC still has (as you know) a lot more realism than FSATC.So to add airports around the world is fine if people are willing to do all 20,000+, or even the 9000+ major ones.Plus, there's only one guy working on every file you hear (all 58,000+ of them). And that guy has a lot of his own stuff to take care of.Which reminds me - where's your controller set? ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott,OK - you got me there! In fact I'm full of admiration for the time and effort you guys have put into recording these voice sets, and to you in particular for pulling them together. I don't think I'd ever find the time to record one - in recent weeks I've hardly even found time to fly!Just a few final thoughts on the matter though:There are an ever-increasing list of new airlines that people have requested. Add to this the request to have real airport and waypoint names, and as you say it puts an impossibly onerous task on all of the voice artists to record.If instead each voice artist recorded a syllable set (I'm guessing less than 100 wavs) then these could be compiled programatically to form the wav files for the new airlines and airports. In fact, if this were extended to include the existing airlines and center names, then future voice artists would in fact have fewer wavs to record, and you might have more volunteers.Of course I'm not sure how the process of combining the syllables into wav files would actually work, and the program to do this would take quite some effort, but as with Lars's EditVoicepack it must be do-able.Anyway, I think I've written enough on the subject, so I'll get off the soap-box now. :-)Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think we would be laughed out of the sky if we started putting together syllables. it just wouldn't flow.jd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ian,<>I thought the same until I bit the bullet and started recording. Although 1138 wav files sounds a lot just about every wav comprises a single word so you can get through them quite quickly using Scott's excellent software which displays the word(s) to be spoken and then plays it back to you immediately after you've recorded it and if you're happy with it you move on to the next word with a mouse click. The software makes it about as straight forward as it's possible to get.I think it took me about 3 hours to record a controller set which you may think is a long time but once you get into it you don't really notice the time.I would ask those who feel they do have a few hours to spare to at least download the software and give it a try. It might not be as bad as you think and we could make an excellent program even better with a good spread of accents.Perhaps JD could offer some kind of incentive?Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to jump in here and say it's not my recording software. It was done for JD by another of his pals. I only enhance and process, and most of the time, clean up.There is one proviso to those recording. I have since had to reject a couple of sets that weren't trimmed to remove the silence off the front anf back of the word/phrase to be recorded. It simply takes too long for my limited time. There are exceptions, of course, depending on how good the recording quality is. That's why I include test scripts one can records and send me for advice on how to improve the quality.Since we are in such desparate need of female controllers, I will do all the trimming and processing, but I still need good quality recordings (no ambient background sound, hum, clicks, popping P's, T's and S's, or HVAC systems running). I can automate the process easier that way.At the moment it's controllers we need. We have a good number of pilots - but again, female pilots are also welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An idea I got yesterday while spotting incoming airliners over my house:Example:In my Area (LPFR) arrival traffic goes mostly through 3 different routes to land on RWY28.One route goes over my house, 4 airliners in 2 minutes if it's busy (3000-6000 feet).There's a STAR to fly near my house but ATC have changed it a bit.Another route is close to a mountain, and wrong verctoring could mean the biggest television antenna beeing in danger :)So, I wish a tool like AFCAD where I could draw the most common routes airliners fly within my airport area (with speed/alt range etc.) As I have the ATC information I could make these routes for my airport easily (and share them somehow like Ulitamate Traffic Updater).Then RC could 'read' these custom made routes and depending on my actual flightplan choose the best of these 3 arrival routes to vector me in towards the localizer as real as possible.The default vectoring in RC is way off reality, of course.And telling RC that I'll fly the last miles with own navigation (without RC) because RC has no idea how to handle real world procedures or dangerous areas is not so cool :)Hope you all understood what my idea is about ?! :))I'm myself a programmer that thinak such a 'RC-CAD' tool should be possible to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really enjoy using Radar Contact, it is fine addition to Flight Simulator.Here are a few requests for RC version 4:Holding at other than final fixes, enroute holding is not uncommon.A full time key to repeat calls or instructions.During departure climb, instructions for further climb nearly always come just after power is reduced at interim assigned altitudes. ATIS weather; it never gets to minus 15C in Los Angeles or San Francisco.Rgards,RichR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich,>I really enjoy using Radar Contact, it is fine addition to>Flight Simulator.Great.>Here are a few requests for RC version 4:>>Holding at other than final fixes, enroute holding is not>uncommon.I'll leave this to the experts.>A full time key to repeat calls or instructions.There is already one. Look at the RC Key Assignments (Options/Customize RC Keys). You also have to make sure you have Pilot Auto-reply off.>During departure climb, instructions for further climb nearly>always come just after power is reduced at interim assigned>altitudes.I would also like to have more random step climbs/descents. I'll leave this for JD as well.>ATIS weather; it never gets to minus 15C in Los Angeles or San>Francisco.Make a dat when this happens. Also, run Pete's WeatherSet2, included with FSUIPC. What does it say is the temperature for the airport?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can RC write to the Kneeboard in FS2004 in the same way that the standard ATC does?I know we have the repeat key, but sometimes its difficult to hear the exact words in some of the waves. (not a problem, in fact I think its like this in real life) but, having a brief summary of the command might help if its possible.RegardsMark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this