FLJeff337

First off, thanks to everyone that took the time to respond. I would have replied sooner, but have been working all morning. I think I'll first reach out to the developer and mention my concerns (including offering the evidence that led me to think some of my models may have been used without my knowledge). They seem to have a pretty good reputation, and if in fact some of my models were used (as I suspect they were), I'm hoping it was unintentional and unknown to the team as whole. I think my case is fairly strong for at least two of the buildings (I don't have MSFS or the airport scenery, so I can't examine it in depth). My model has a small triangular sliver missing from part of one of the roofs (a result of a polygon normal face that wasn't flipped, making it look transparent), and this shows up exactly the same (same location, shape and size) in the developer's screenshot of the same building. Also, one of my columns didn't extend all the way to the sloped entrance walk, and you can see this same column floating slightly in the developer screenshots as well). Intricate 3D modeled elements (including railing at stairs and ramps, rooftop equipment, etc.) also looks virtually identical. As I said, I hope this was just the case of one bad actor (either someone unaffiliated with the developer who at some point took my models and posted them to a 3D model warehouse claiming them as his own, or perhaps someone on the developer's team who got lazy, used my models claiming them as his/her own and misled the rest of the team without their knowledge), and that the developer will review my claim and act accordingly. Thanks for all your thoughts. Thanks, Jeff

I have a dilemma, and I'm looking for some advice... Just recently, a developer released a payware version of an airport (for MSFS) that I had modeled several years ago as freeware (and uploaded to Avsim). While I don't yet have MSFS, I still looked at the screenshots that were posted as it is an airport I am very familiar with, and I was curious to see what it looked like when modeled by a dedicated scenery developer. However, as I was looking at the screenshots, I got a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that some of the models I was looking at in the screenshots may have been taken and used without my knowledge or permission. It's not that there were just mere similarities between my models and the ones I was looking at in the screenshots (which would be expected if two competent modelers modeled the same real-world object), but rather things that look exactly like my models (for instance, detailed 3D guardrails at stairs/ramps that match exactly, rooftop equipment/ antennas, etc.). Furthermore, one of the models in my scenery has several glitches in it that show up in the screenshots of the payware versions as well (matching the size, location, shape that they occur in my model). With that being said, it looks like the developer did do a commendable job with the scenery as a whole, adding many elements that I did not model. Unfortunately, it looks like part of the scenery package may include several models of mine that I did not give permission to use. So I suppose my first question would be how could I find out if the models I think are mine really are mine, and if they are, what should my next action be? Should I first reach out to the developer and ask them about it (in the possibility they were misled about the origin or usage rights of the models I believe are mine - i.e. an honest mistake)? Should I reach out to a website (like fselite) with the evidence supporting my suspicions (such as comparison screenshots, and screenshots of my process, including 2D and 3D CAD models)? Is there someone here who could analyze the models themselves to see if they match (remember that I don't have MSFS, so I've only seen the product via their screenshots)? When I uploaded my scenery to Avsim, I accepted that someone may take it and upload it to a shady website elsewhere (perhaps even for a fee), however it feels different when you see what you think is your work in a scenery by a known developer. I wouldn't be voicing this concern of mine if I thought there was a chance I could be mistaken, but when the models look identical (including modeling errors), felt that I had to bring it up instead of being reluctant to come forward in the slight chance I might be mistaken. Looking for some advice... Thanks, Jeff

Actually, I think we will get one... If you watch Episode 4 of the feature discovery series (Cockpits), you can see what looks to be a steam gauge 172 on the monitor on the left hand side of the screen (in the background, behind Martial Bossard)... The person flying switches between external and cockpit views, and it definitely looks like a 172R, -S or -SP (although I suppose it could also be a 182, but since the screen in the background is so blurry, it's impossible to tell if there's a prop control knob or not). Hope I'm right....

I don't have Nuvecta Landscapes FL, but my impression of MSE FL v3 is generally positive, in part because it avoids the pitfalls of the last FL photoscenery I had (RealWorld FL), namely coastlines with no transition between shallow areas and the ocean/gulf, absolutely HORRIBLE winter scenery (where, for whatever reason, they tried to make it look like heavy snow had fallen on the sunshine state), an error where there were two duplicate scenery tiles near Ocala (one in the correct location, and another just north of it -- I sent them an email about the issue, but never got a response back), and no uniformity in color across the state (i.e. you might see a sharp transition from green summer textures to brown scenery more typical of winter). In contrast to RWFL, MSE's Florida scenery is fairly decent. Coastlines are extremely well done, and it seems more care has been taken with regards to color correction across the state (the state is more uniformly green). There are a couple of things I don't like, though. For starters, the cites seem overexposed and look like the morning after a snow storm (I actually changed seasons in sim since I was afraid they too added unrealistic winter textures, but it turned out that was just how the textures looked all the time). The resolution of the scenery doesn't seem as sharp as RWFL either, and it seems to be a but more shimmery (at least in FSX, using DX10 fixer). Finally, while I appreciate the effort made to harmonize colors across the whole state for a consistent look, I think the the scenery (especially the green vegetation) is a little too bright and vibrant. In this regard, RWFL seemed much better (provided you weren't flying over a part of the state that was either winter brown, or fake winter). Just my $0.02.... - Jeff

You may also want to look at the handbooks you can download (for free) from the FAA. They may not be as entertaining as some of the courses you can purchase (i.e. Sportys, King Schools, etc.), but they are a wealth of knowledge and a good reference. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/ The two books I read through when getting my PPL were the "Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge" and the "Airplane Flying Handbook"

Jay, A couple days after my initial flight, I flew it again (with the same flight plan and weather as before) in order to further investigate Vox's behavior/logic. This time, after receiving my initial approach instructions, instead of immediately complying with them (by turning to the assigned heading and starting my descent), I first requested the alternate approach (while maintaining my heading and altitude). After being told to report CUTON (the IF), I added FORNI into my GTN flight plan (after OVIDO), and continued to fly as filed (starting my descent at my own discretion). I reached FORNI at the published altitude, and continued to fly the RNAV(GPS) Z Rwy 18 approach without problem. My initial question had more to do with Vox's "hands-off" approach once they approved my request for a different approach. Since I was expecting amended instructions given the new approach (either assignment of different heading, or perhaps a "proceed direct to..." instruction), I wasn't sure if I was still supposed to comply with their initial heading/altitude assignment, or if I was free to navigate to the start of the approach as I saw fit (including starting my descent at the appropriate time). Having flown this flight a second time, I now see that Vox expects you to proceed to the start of the approach on your own, and won't issue amended instructions despite approval of a different approach from the one initially assigned. While I wish Vox didn't cut you completely loose once they approved your request (I'd have to think that RW ATC would issue amended instructions so you don't conflict with other traffic), I do prefer a hands-off approach over one in which ATC is overbearing with excessive, out-of-the-way vectoring and descent clearances that start way too late (ala default ATC). Regarding the two different RNAV Rwy18 approaches ("Y" and "Z"), I assumed I would be flying the RNAV Y approach (since my last waypoint before KTIX was OVIDO, which is a transition of the "Y" approach). However, when Vox told me to report CUTON, I realized they had assigned me the "Z" approach instead (even though it wasn't explicitly identified by Vox as such), and that's when I added FORNI (the IAF for the "Z" approach) into my GPS (just after OVIDO), and loaded the "Z" approach into the GTN (which is Flight1's GTN 650, with AIRAC 1803). To answer your question about FSX/P3D recognizing multiple GPS approaches for the same runway, I added both the "Y" and "Z" approaches to KTIX using ADE (including the transitions), and it does appear that default ATC recognizes both (they're listed as "RNAV Z" and "RNAV Y" under the available options when you request a different approach ). I can only assume that Vox would recognize both approaches as well (assuming it reads and utilizes the data included in the sim, including airport data), although it doesn't appear you can request one over the other using Vox. Thanks for taking the time to reply, Jeff

On a recent flight from KTPF-KTIX, and while on V533 just slightly west-northwest of KMCO, ATC gave me instruction to turn right to 080, descend and maintain 3000' and expect vectors for the RNAV Rwy09 approach. The winds were out of the south, so after I made my turn and started my descent, I requested the RNAV Rwy18 approach instead. ATC then approved it, and told me to report CUTON (the intermediate fix); no additional vectors or altitudes were assigned. My question is, was I supposed to fly direct to FORNI (the initial fix) or to CUTON (an intermediate fix)? In either case, the direct route would have me flying at 3000' just a couple miles north of KMCO, off the approach end of runways 17L/R and 18L/R (which, IRL, wouldn't seem too smart). Furthermore, my filed routing had me taking V533 to the ORL VOR, then outbound to OVIDO (which is a transition for KTIX's RNAV Y Rwy18 approach). After receiving my initial instructions from ATC, should I have requested the alternate approach, disregarded ATC's vectors/descent instructions, and continued flying as I had filed, descending at my own discretion? Thanks, Jeff

A week or so ago, I went ahead and purchased ProATC-X (after having first tried out the trial versions of PF3 and VoxATC) and my feelings towards PATCX are mixed (although when I purchased the program, I knew going in that I might be disappointed). I only fly small GA, and while on one hand I heard that PATCX was really intended for larger aircraft (i.e. turbojets/props), I also heard from people who were happy with it when flying GA. After having a couple flights under my belt, I'm on one hand impressed by the potential I see in the program (which is probably already realized by those who fly higher performance aircraft), while on the other, disappointed in the lack of support for smaller GA flights. What I Like: - Clean interface and easy to use menu - Use of RW navdata - Voices seem better than PF3 or VoXATC, and sound as good (in their own way) as the default voices (and I am aware that the demo version of PF3 comes with a limited number of voices, and that the ones included in the demo aren't necessarily the best, thus making my comparison to PATCX admittedly a bit unfair) What I Don't Like: - At untowered airports, PATCX creates fictional Clearance, Ground and Tower controllers (which I didn't know it did until after I bought the program, encountered the issue and then googled it); apparently these are required for PATCX to work, and at airports without them, PATCX will create fictional placeholders to ensure those requirements are met. - Some frequencies don't agree with RW frequencies; for instance: 124.82 for Orlando approach (should've been 119.40 for my location/altitude), 119.77 for Ft Myers Approach (should've been 126.80 when approaching from north-northwest as I was) - Can't seem to request RNAV approach or approach transition (no options under "Request Alternate Approach Procedure" for the several flights I flew); although I was able to request direct to the IF for an RNAV approach on one flight (though not the transition waypoint, nor even the IAF) - Vectoring seems excessive at times - Inability to request taxi to GA parking - Required to choose airline name For those reasons, I'll pass on using PATCX for now, which is frustrating since I think it could be a really impressive program (for my kind of flying) if they were only able to expand it to better handle GA (including non-towered airports, GPS/RNAV approaches/transitions (where appropriate) and shorter routes). I'm sure if I flew longer routes in more capable aircraft between larger airports I'd come away more impressed with the program. I'm currently gravitating towards using either default ATC or VoxATC (I wasn't too impressed with PF3), and my reasons for all three can be found here: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/544228-proatc-x-and-ga/. I'm also considering RC4 (despite it's age) given that many people have commented on how it's a fairly rock-solid program, but was curious how it compares to default or VoxATC. I'm less concerned with SIDs/STARs, VFR capability and natural-sounding voices, and more concerned with correct frequencies (which default ATC seems to have nailed), RNAV approaches/transitions (are they recognized, and if so, do you have to request them as you do with default, or are they assigned by ATC), IFR operations at untowered airports (something not realistically possible with PATCX) and sensible vectoring (where I'm not vectored far from the airport as if I were a 7X7 or Airbus when I'm only flying a Cessna). Thanks, Jeff

John, I managed to find a couple more videos of people flying relatively short legs in small GA using PATCX (links included below), and that, along with a thread on A2A's forum about using PATCX for GA, has convinced me to take the plunge and give it a try. A2A Bonanza, Blackpool to Carlyle (EGNH-EGNC): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db3iA2iGob0 RA Legacy, Danbury to Bridgeport (KDXR-CDBR): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K1sowQltYA Carenado Mooney, Gustavus to Juneau Intl (PAGS-PAJN): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3-EBPGPqEs I appreciate your thoughts, and I'll probably post my thoughts once I get a couple flights under my belt. Thanks, Jeff

All: For the past week or so, I've been comparing FSX's default ATC against the demo versions of PF3 and VoxATC (specifically with an eye to light GA IFR flights). I've found things I like and dislike with all three options (see below), and wanted to know how ProATC-X stacks up in comparison. Unfortunately no demo version is offered, and nearly all Youtube videos where PATC is used are of turbojet / turboprop flights). First a rundown of my likes/dislikes from the programs I've already tried (based on three IFR flights: untowered-towered, towered-towered and towered-untowered). Default ATC Like: - Frequencies appear correct (even for different approach / departure sectors based on bearing from airport and altitude) - Ability to request specific approach and transition (i.e. RNAV 22, via DADES transition) - GUI: menu w/ options, comm history Don't Like: - For shorter flights, departure controller likes to issue approach instructions for the destination airport (wouldn't approach instructions be assigned by the approach controller covering the destination airport?) VoxATC Like: - Handoff sequence seems correct (from departure to center to approach to tower) - Recognizes specific approach requests (i.e. RNAV Rwy 03) which can be requested; also recognizes approach waypoints (i.e. "report GUNNR," "report ARSHW," "report FLYEN") - Crossing runways while taxiing requires clearance to proceed - Menu with options and comm history (although not as clean-looking as default) Don't Like: - Fictional clearance name (i.e. "Utopia Radio") - Directed to request airport conditions info from unicom (and not AWOS) at untowered airports PF3 Like: - Handoff sequence seems correct (from departure to center to approach to tower) Don't Like: - Fictional approach/departure frequencies - No acknowledgement of RNAV approaches (seems to be vectors to runway only) - IFR cancelled abruptly when on IFR flight plan to untowered airport; told to squawk 1200 and contact advisory on fictional fequency (2 trials of same flight - KLEE-KTPF) - No menu (have to memorize hotkeys or refer to cheatsheet) or comm history ("say again" not always effective, as new trasmissions make it impossible to hear transmission before that) Now for a couple questions about PATCX: 1. RNAV Approaches - Will PATC assign RNAV approaches with transitions as appropriate (or can they be requested)? If so, where would the approaches be read from (in-sim airport data, 3rd party nav data, etc.)? 2. RNAV Approaches - If RNAV approaches are recognized and assigned, is there a way to exclude them as options in case I were to fly a plane without a GPS, or instead request an alternate approach using ground-based navaids (i.e. ILS, VOR, NBD)? 3. SID/STARs - will procedures not applicable to aircraft type be excluded? For example, if I'm flying a piston aircraft will PATCX know not to assigned a SID/STAR that's reserved for TURBOJETS/ TURBOPROPS ONLY"? 4. What AIRAC cycle does PATC currently ship with? The current manual (dating from Nov 2014) says it comes with Navigraph data, but that it is six months out of date. For that matter, does either Navigraph or NavDataPro offer older AIRAC cycles (since my F1GTN is current only as of cycle 1803) 5. What's the minimum flight distance for PATC to work? I read several places that PATC doesn't support short trip distances. What's considered a short trip? Believe me when I say I've read just about every ATC thread out there (both on Avsim and elsewhere), and the last think I want want to do is create another, but since I fly mostly light GA, I thought it'd be worthwhile (especially since some of the threads I've read are several years old by now). Thanks, Jeff

Tony, For what it's worth, if you go with the F1 GTN, you can update the database to 1803 as well (although this isn't an official update/fix from Flight1). You'd have to download v6.5 of the Garmin trainer, backup the old navdata files (AIRAC 1611) and then copy/overwrite the old files with the newer files from the v6.5 trainer (remembering to backup your old files first).

True, but since the current publications are already available for no charge, there should be no reason that out-of-date publications shouldn't be made available on a as-requested basis; after all, it's not as if I was asking for old charts in order to avoid paying for current data (as there is is no charge for current data when obtained from the FAA), and I even explained the reason for my request in my email to them (stressing that it was not for real-world usage, but rather simulation/historical purposes). With that being said, even I figured that filing a FOIA request would be taking things a wee bit too far... lol

After looking at Jeppesen's website, it looks like the same restriction applies... On Jeppesen's PilotPak for the GTN page, they link to Garmin's "how to find System ID on your unit," which says: "The unit ID (or system ID) is an internal number which is required for database updates and downloads. (These updates can be done on our flyGarmin website.) Each aviation database update is downloaded specific to the system ID of each GPS, therefore if the system ID is incorrect on our website, your aviation databases will not update correctly." With that being said, I haven't contacted them to inquire about it, but that's due more to frustration over having wasted so much time and energy already dealing with the FAA and Garmin trying to either get older charts or newer navdata, and not wanting to waste any more time on the matter. I do appreciate the suggestion, and maybe someone will be willing to contact them and see if it's possible...

David, I looked at Jeppesen's website, and it looks like the same restriction applies... From their website: "The unit ID (or system ID) is an internal number which is required for database updates and downloads. (These updates can be done on our flyGarmin website.) Each aviation database update is downloaded specific to the system ID of each GPS, therefore if the system ID is incorrect on our website, your aviation databases will not update correctly." I appreciate the suggestion, though....

What's even more frustrating is, before trying to get updated navdata from Garmin, I first tried to get out-of-date charts (low altiture en-route and terminal procedures) from the FAA, and found that impossible to to. As the FAA offers current digital products for free on their website (including VFR sectionals, terminal area charts, IFR charts, airport facilty directory, IFR terminal procedures, etc.), I naively assumed that out-of-date products would be archived when they expired, and that it'd be a realtively easy matter for the FAA to retrieve them (even if a small fee was involved). I was hoping to at least get charts/procedures that were in effect at the time of AIRAC 1611 (which is the databse used in the latest GTN trainer), so they would agree with each other. I couldn't have been more wrong! The FAA was unable to perform the relatively (seemingly) simple task of retrieving files from less than 2 years prior, and they even directed me to to contact either the National Archives or Library of Congress (and no, they weren't able to help me either)! With that said, I'm sure if I (or any pilot) was accused of an infraction that occurred when an older cycle was in effect, that the FAA would have absolutely no problem procuring older charts/info if it could be used to prove their case against me or any other pilot. Anyways.... Just wanted to rant....