Jarkko

The main difference is that the certain B757 team haven't mentioned a release date and RCv5 development is officially on hold (announcement can be found here on Avsim). PFPX team informed in 2011 that PFPX will be relased in December 2011. To me there is a notable difference

Hello! As most of us will never get a change to work as a pilot, it would be nice to hear stories about: 1. What parts of real world flying do you miss when flying a simulator? 2. What are some of the (real world) things you are happy to exclude when flying a simulator?

Hello! Sorry for bringing old topic back to life, but I have the very same question in mind. I only fly routes that AirHauler assings me, so my flights normally originate from a large airport, but my destinations are mostly not covered by human ATC. If you have managed to use VoxATC, Pro ATC/X or RC4 with Vatsim (or even ivao), I would be happy to hear how this has worked. Thanks!

I use AeroWeather on my iPhone or AivlaSoft EFB.

I have used VoxATC for quite some time now, but this was the first time I heard the announcements BTW you can choose which voices to use. In the default package, there are not that many, but some are available for free and many if you are willing to pay for them.

Hello @@alpha117, A quick question. Is there a plan/guess what things will be included in the version 1.2.1.1? Thanks!

Sorry for going off topic, but I'm impressed! I would have never guessed that some day I would see Finnish written on avsim You just made my day and for that I have to say: Kiitos paljon!

Thank you Kyle for a great post!

Hello! I'll bite I got VoxATC after using RC4 for a long time. I wanted to try four things that RC4 didn't have: 1) Talking to ATC with "correct" phraseology (I used RC4 with IYP so I could talk to RC4, but wanted "more"). 2) Ground handling. VoxATC gives you taxiways to use and is aware of the other ground traffic (because it generates the traffic). And it's nice to be number 8+ for departure on large airports. 3) Full support for SIDs and STARs. I enjoy the fact that the aircraft that depart in front of you (sometimes) fly the same SID you have been assigned. 4) VFR flying There are a couple of things that I personally would like to see changed in VoxATC: - Vectoring currently not aware of the terrain. Safest way is to request full approach when there is dangerous terrain around the airport. - Correct transition altitudes for the whole world. - Radio frequency ping-pong when flying near borders. - This is more of on issue with Opus, but tail wind landings are quite common. Opus recovers the surface winds too late for ATC programs to assign a correct runway. If the weather could be read from a weather engine specific file, this would not be a problem. To summarize: I'm happy with VoxATC and RC4. EDIT: Having said all that, I'm currently following ProATC very closely. When they get the ATC part working solid, I will give it a try. Already have the money "earmarked"

From what I have read, I'm unable to agree (at the momement). The reason for the warning is explained on the product's support forum. To give a short summary: The program reads the required runway length through SimConnect. If the aircraft doesn't report these values, the ATC program does not know what runways the aircraft is able to use. More informative message could be "I don't know your aircrafts performace figures, so please request a runway that is most suitable for you" You might have to request a specific runway in the rw. Just watched Just Planes DVD where a flight from Stockholm to Newark was too heavy to depart from the assigned runway. They had to request a longer runway. So even people with professional systems might have enough data to make "correct" desicions. How about a computer that knows even less? The point being, I personally believe that the program isn't playing a role of a dispatcher. Just trying to warn that it doesn't have enough data to work "correctly".

@@roygbiv Hello! 1) Haven't had this problem so unfortunately I can't help you on this one. 2) I have gotten into a loop like that, but have managed to get out of it by acknowledging all contacts. 3) This is quite common. RC4 isn't aware of the terrain. The was some sort of "safe altitude" field in the properties. You could check that this value is correct before you fly. Other than that, you have to be aware of the terrain and "ignore" RC4 if you do not feel safe.

@@J van E By any change, where you flying in US? On the official forum, there is a lot of discussion how STARs do not work correctly in the new version (they work in Europe, but not in the US). The problem seem to be that the transition part of the STAR gets ignored. It's very well explained on the support forum (and why it doesn't effect STARs in Europe).

I kind a wish they would have sticked to that idea. Just to let you know what I mean: We already have good flight planners and we have good FO software available. What we do not have is a great ATC addon in active development. I would be perfectly happy if Pro ATC UI had only one input field, where you would copy/paste you flight plan IF (and this is a big if) the ATC part would be as good as can be. YMMV.

I think this is quite nicely explained here: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/380183-sid-has-altitude-limits-atc-instructs-climbing-what-to-do/ "a restatement of an assigned altitude OR an assignment of a new altitude DOES cancel any other altitude restrictions on the SID" EDIT: I have to take that back. The answer is: it depends on where you are flying. To give you an example: http://www.nbaa.org/ops/intl/nam/canada-sid-star/ "On February 9, 2012, NAV CANADA, implemented a major change in Canadian ATC procedures that will require aircraft to comply with published SID/STAR altitude restrictions unless they are explicitly cancelled by ATC."

I think most pilots would be pleased with this. It would get you to a higher altitude faster. Away from the weather, less time burning fuel at the lower altitudes and you can release the cabin crew sooner.

Hello! I have yet to purchase the Pro ATC X, but was planning to do so over the coming holidays. I currently have VoxATC and RC4 and some of the posts got my attention and would like to ask (and comment) about a few: I read about a similar situation on the official forum. The clearance delivery (sort of) "gives" you an expected runway. The problem is that (at the moment) the CD doesn't do so verbally. The expected runway will be "color coded on the map" (IIRC). To be honest, I wish my current ATC programs would do this. Here's why: I mostly fly JS41 and E135 (manual throttle, manual trim). I hate it when I start to level of (at the first assigned altitude) only to get assigned a higher altitude after 5 seconds of level flight. The TOD part got my interest. If we think of some of the things that effect the calculated TOD point you see in your aircraft: - Descent cost index you have entered - The predicted winds you have entered into the box On top of that, In Europe, the ATC assigns you the STAR. This means that the initial TOD point is calculated based on direct route from your last way point to your destination (until you know which STAR to fly). STARs are always longer that direct route, so the initial TOD calculated by the aircraft is "invalid". When you consider these things, it would be very lucky coincidence if the ATC's TOD would match you aircraft's TOD. The arrival part is also the thing that I would like to ask a question about. Does Pro ATC give you the STAR "clearence" in which form: A) cleared via <STAR name> (you fly the altitudes that ATC gives you, basically only LNAV) or B) descent via <STAR name> (it is your job to follow the altitude restrictions without ATC help, LNAV + VNAV)? I have yet to find an ATC program that would allow for option B. This is why I'm interested. Thanks!

Hello Chase, For me it still seems to be the case. Today I have received 4 daily digests from a single topic. I will have to double check my settings.

At the moment I use FSBuild and vRoute Premium for fuel planning. Before that I used my own spreadsheets or FSCommander.

You are absolutely correct! When I first posted (on the 20th) the only auto routing modes (made available to the public) were AUTOL (low) AUTOH (high). A day later a new auto mode was demoed (AUTO+) which allows for wind optimized routes (and many more).

Hello Ian, Out of curiosity, what are the things you didn't like about AS2012, REXe, IF and FSMeteo? Thanks!

Hello! I'm currently having trouble with the email notifications. Since this morning I have had 6+ notifications from a topic I marked for "daily digest". Same thing with weekly digests. Seems that every update is sent as an "instant" email notification. Is this a global problem or something to do with my user settings? Thanks for the help! - Jarkko

I have the (now removed) A330 video on DVD. It's a good video, but in my book, not the best one available from ITVV. Their Concorde and MD-11 are extremely good, even in today's standards as they were filmed "quite some time ago".

I have the same question as Dirk (see above). On top of that, I have a couple of my own: 1) Is there a demo available? I'm currently using 2 other ATC programs and both of them vector me into the terrain. I would like to see if ProAtc can handle it. (If anyone is interested, here is my test flight: FL190 LSZH DEGES Z2 OSDOV M738 MADEB N606 ELMEM LOWI) 2) This one is more of a "nice to have". Does ProAtc support North Atlantic tracks? With PFPX release around the corner, I would like to replicate a ETOPS flight from Just Planes video: Air Canada A319 from St John's to London to St John's. Thanks! (With AI ground handling and voice support planned, I'm now seriously interested in ProATC)

This just in from the official forum: PFPX will do wind optimized routes. I have to say that PFPX is starting to look good!

Hello Dave, I'm desperate to learn more, so here goes. Do you mean that the winds are taken into account: a) when calculating an "optimal" flight level for a given route c) auto generated route will be different based on projected winds aloft c) both a & b? If the answer is either b or c, then I have misunderstood something. On the official forum a member of the beta team mentioned, that "A lot of additional things would need to be added to PFPX to do winds routes." This is where i got the impression that "only" a would be possible with the first release version.