Future of RC ?

[Guest A386]

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

[Guest mikealpha]

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

[Guest Cx881]

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

[jd 57]

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

[jd 57]

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?

[jd 57]

what do you mean integrated?

[ronzie 21]

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.

[Guest Scott Campbell]

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.

[Guest mikealpha]

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

[PeteP 2]

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

[Guest mikealpha]

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

[Guest mikealpha]

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

[PeteP 2]

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

[Guest bobfiegel]

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

[ConstVoid 110]

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