Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

1,025 profile views
  1. Thanks and I am using the 3rd party panel so will just have to forgo the VC. That isn't a big deal for me though and was more interested in why the problem occurred in the first place.
  2. Good point and not something that I am capable of doing anyway. That being the case, and taking into consideration my last post, what do you suggest?
  3. Now I am confused, a little ... the SMS 737-700 DOES have a VC and does give model options for the base model, base model with winglets and base model with winglets and VC; however, the addon panel has NO VC option that would/could interfere with the aircraft .mdl at all? What I'm saying is, if you think the problem was caused by the add-on panel also having a VC thereby conflicting with the SMS model .mdl, yet the add-on panel has no VC at all, how can there be a conflict? What adds to my confusion is the use of a non VC model DOES correct the issue?
  4. hjwalter, Thanks mate. I got something called HxD Editor and when it opened the SMS .mdl file it looked like a "mess"! I have no idea what I am looking at to be honest so didn't play with it and risk screwing something up. What I did though, thanks to you pointing in the VC direction, was to use a non VC model for the plane and bingo - the problem vanished; however, I now don't have a VC. Anyway, how on earth do you read the .mdl file and what part of it do I actually have to remove? This is apart of what I am confronted with:
  5. I fly the SMS Overland series of aircraft, especially the 737-700. I also use a freeware panel (tungv1 - downloaded from here). The problem I am having is what seems to be a "duplication of the SMS panel and the tungv1 or 2 panels" - the picture shows exactly what I mean: Winglet Model: NON Winglet model: The interesting thing is the above issue is only apparent when using the SMS 737-700 Winglet model, it is not an issue with the NON winglet model. I have tried removing the "wing views" entries in the panel .cfg along with the relevant images from the tingv1 Panel folder without success. Anyone else experienced this or know what the issue might be? PS: tried going to SMS for support but got nothing back from them what so ever.
  6. Firstly, you were the one that said, and I quote "...EVERY programmes has release bugs..." unquote, You were also the one who said there was an Update in the works to fix the problems people had experienced. From that, it is not unreasonable to assume that PF3 (being a program) had release bugs, if it didn't there would be nothing to fix. I actually thought it was refreshing to hear someone from a company admit that the product wasn't perfect and that it did have some issues and those issues were being addressed. As for the points about voices - you might want to re-read that again, especially the bits in brackets at the end of each point. My points regarding /quality control/testing were general points and, if you care to read what you wrote, supportive of what you wrote - that EVERY program has release bugs. So far as I am concerned, PF3 works well for me, but no better than RC, and the bugs that I have found, "and I have found what I would call bugs such as with the Taxi Manager thing" aren't that big a deal.
  7. As for the "voice concerns" well, there are a number of ways to fix that: 1. Use real Controllers from every control tower world wide (yeah right) 2. Gather 1 person from every region of every country world wide for recording the controller messages in a "controlled" environment (see above) 3. Gather 1 person from the N, E, S and W of every country for recording the controller messages in a "controlled" environment (getting closer) 4. Gather 1 person from every country through out the world for recording the controller messages in a "controlled" environment (maybe) 5. Have 1 person from every country record the controller messages in a "controlled" environment. (doable with some effort) or, 6. Forget using people and use nothing more than computer generated speech. In today's technological age (which is out of control I might add) there is not reason or excuse for a program that uses speech not to have real (non robotic) speech. Sure it may take a little more time to achieve or work to implement BUT it is possible and it IS doable. What really annoys me though is hearing (example only) an Australian accent coming from (for example) an Italian Control tower. There really is no reason or excuse for that other than what I have outlined in my post above. Aside from all of that - why do people even want an ATC addon? After all, doesn't, as John pointed out, the default ATC's achieve the fundamental purpose of ATC (getting a plane from it's gate and into the air then back down to another gate) appropriate and compatible to it's own program? In short, if the default ATC's fulfill the "basic" functions of ATC, why even bother with addon ATC programs at all? So with that being said - what would people LIKE TO SEE in an addon ATC program?
  8. You are correct BUT that (IMO) is nothing more than an excuse for one of the following: 1. Poor quality control/testing 2. Poor attention to detail during the quality control/testing phase 3. Bugs, issues, problems being identified during quality control/testing being ignored by the manufacturer for the purpose of getting the product on the market for the purpose of generating revenue, something Microsoft is very good at doing. If the quality control/testing phase was done fully, effectively and properly and the company fixed the problems that may have been identified, no product would be released with issues, bugs or problems only "personal preference" matters that don't effect the "base purpose" of the product. In short - if it aint broke, don't fix it. Things that should have been identified during the quality control/testing phase or, identified and then ignored, and evidently wern''t. Bottom line for me is this ... any company etc that professes regular updates for fixes, issues, problems etc is doing nothing than more than admitting the product, at it's release, had problems and bugs and needs fixing and that makes the product justifiably questionable UNLESS those updates are only to add or include things that are only "niceties". If companies fully and properly tested their product and fixed identified bugs, issues and problems BEFORE the products release, the customer (sorry - end user) wouldn't have anything to complain about other than personal preference matters and; therefore, the company wouldn't have to deal with complaints or constantly send out updates.
  9. No problem and I thought, from what you said, that may have been the result. Cheers, wombat457
  10. Just out of curiosity, you say you fly STAR's with RC but don't comply with ATC (exactly) which does make flying the STAR unrealistic in so far as RC is concerned. As such, why spend 35 pound ($44 US) for another program just so you can fly SID's if you are likely not to comply with what ATC instructs for the SID anyway? I am not being judgmental toward or critical of the way you fly, I just don't see the point in wasting money for something that I am not going to utilise properly. It also makes me lean more toward spending that money on FSC and doing what you do now, flying the SID and STAR the way you want to without ATC getting all bent out of shape like RC does. Cheers, wombat457
  11. The short answer is I don't know, I have not flown a SID's or STAR's flight plan with it and I rarely do as none of them (ATC add ons) seem to be all that realistic and, in reality, offer nothing that I can't fly on my own without the aid of an ATC program. As you probably know, SID's and STAR's are standard routes to go from departure to your en route/as filed plan and from en route to approach and each airport that accommodates SID's and STAR's has those standardized routes. As such, all you need to know (essentially) are the way points, altitudes and speeds for those way points to use them, at least in simple terms. So, if your flying priority is the use of SID's and STAR's incorporated flight plans I would suggest you stick with RC and get hold of FSC and use that to negotiate your flights in so far as SID's and STAR's are concerned. In short, I wouldn't rely on or use any ATC program for them. From my perspective, if flying with a SID's and STAR's FP, I do my clearance and ground work with ATC, turn it off, fly the SID's then turn ATC back on for the en route then off again for the STAR's etc, and I don't know of any ATC program that can do that. Your other option of course is to fly on VATSIM and just hope you don't get a 12 year old controller :) cheers, wombat457
  12. GhiomKL, I have used both RCv4 as well as PF3. As I intimated above, choosing software is a personal decision, what I (for example) like, you may not and visa versa so I am reluctant to advocate either programs. What I will say is this, both are good programs depending on what you expect from them. I like RC for its simplicity and proven stability from being around for years and it does what it does and was intended to do - provide ATC for FS. I also like some elements of PF3, the taxi manager for example; although that is not something that would occur in the real world for every aircraft and for every taxi situations. If you are trying to comply with ATC and don't know an airport, or have the Airport charts, or (like me) can't be bothered reading them it is very useful so long as PF3's Taxi Manager can be accurate and is capable of reading all installed airport layouts, something that is yet to be seen unless someone has every airport scenery ever created. It is difficult to give an opinion and not include the speech/voices because, after all, that is what you are going to be listening to. While I am yet to hear any realistic speech in any ATC or Cockpit type of program, I think the PF3 voices are (generally speaking) better than RC's. Bear in mind though, RC was compiled some ten years or so ago using technology of that era so you would/should expect PF3's voices to be better, in fact, in some cases much better. Bottom line is this, RC has been around for a long time and is, by all accounts, a proven, reliable and stable program where as PF3 is the new boy on the block and has no history, good or bad, to speak of as yet. If you want an ATC program that works and are not concerned by robotic voices or the lack of "extra's" but provides consistent ATC, then I would stay with RC until PF3 attains a proven track record. If you are more concerned about voices and the nice additions that come with PF3 than what the program was designed to do - provide ATC, then you would like PF3. I also prefer the way that PF3 creates its scenery data base over the way RC does it, PF3's is far more "idiot proof" than RC's. At the end of the day, both programs do pretty much the same thing - provide added ATC for FS so the choice is yours and what you want, and what your expectations of an ATC Program are. In conclusion, had I the opportunity to do a flight using the full version of PF3 prior to purchasing it, I probably wouldn't have bought it. Not because it isn't a good program BUT because (other than the extra niceties) it still only does the same thing as RC and that is provide ATC. Cheers, wombat457
  13. Glad John's advice worked and you got it sorted out.
  14. As John said, I think it has been recommended to run PF3 as an Administrator. All I can tell you is that mine is installed in this folder: C:\FS Addons\PF3 From what I can gather though, it shouldn't matter where it is installed be it in the C: directory or on a completely different drive altogether. But I am only guessing here. All the best, wombat457
  15. Sorry but I have no idea. I had those problems with FDC and PFE but both my demo and full versions of PF3 connected without an issue. I also don't know what the "IPC timed out..." mssage is so can't help you there either sorry. One thing I was told was to install PF3 under C:\ and NOT under C:\Program Files. All I can suggest is you try reinstalling PF3 again and see what happens. Hope you get it figured. wombat457
  • Create New...