Jarkko

That surely will cause problems. Please visit the ProATC support forum and look up "Install FAQ" There is a topic called "How the correctly install ProATC". The after install/configuration part starts with: "1) Choose sim version (FSX/P3D) and click save."

I hope you don't mind me jumping in, but I have been very happy using IVONA voice sets with VoxATC. They are expensive, but a step up from VoxPOP voices.

I'm not sure, what you are referring to. Under sound options, you can choose what you prefer. To quote a change log item: "Some users reported that they don't like how airport, waypoint and procedures are pronounced. You may now decide for yourself how they are pronounced. You will find the option under Options/Sound.." 1. METAR worth checking, yes I agree. 2. In the flight plan, pilots should tell ATC what SIDs/STARs are available at the airports that the ATC controls? I have to say, I haven't seen that done before. (or I misunderstood, which seems more likely)

Because I don't own PFE => Not qualified to comment in any way or form. ----- EDIT: Hold on a second, I have to retract my previous comment. Here's why: Like I previously explained. This works only in the US, where you include SIDs/STARs in the flight plan. In Europe, you can't "assign" SIDs/STARs because SIDs/STARs are assigned by the ATC during the flight based on current weather. (I seem to have a typo in the post I was referring to. please replace "common waypoint is the STAR exit" with "common waypoint is the SID exit") In my opinion, transition levels have very little to do with "fpl generating". In Europe, each country can have it's own transition levels. Some countries even have airport specific transition levels. For me, it would be a pain to have to go searching for airport, country and center specific transition levels as they tend to change between AIRAC cycles. This data is included in the AIRAC data => easy for computer programs to process. Hence the word "automatically" in the question. Please do explain more (for anyone interested, ProATC has been developed Europe first and now starting to fine tune the FAA side of the equation).

This is where the main challenge is. As far as I know, most (if not all) offline ATC products in active development are single developer projects. ATC is a very challenging thing to master. This is why it's still a job for the humans and not computers? My prediction is that we will not see the same level of maturity that we see in the aircrafts until someone has the money and time to start a big offline ATC project. Until then, each ATC product needs to cover some corner the other products do not cover in order to do business. So if things do not change, it's about choosing what is must for you and what you can live without. EDIT: Or get 3 ATC products like me and you have your bases quite well covered

In my view, not even close US has SIDs that connect to most runways and SID transitions are common. In the US, you include the SID/STAR in the flight plan because the SID/STAR doesn't have to change if the weather changes during the flight. In Europe, SIDs/STARs are mostly runway heading and exit point specific (and transitions are rare) => many more SIDs/STARs => you do not specify them in your flight plan, because the SID and STAR will change if the weather changes. As an example, let's view this SID http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/LAS/DP/MCCARRAN+FOUR/pdf In Europe, it wouldn't be a single SID with multiple transitions. There would be multiple SIDs ending at BEATTY (for each runway heading, named like BEATTYxxx), multiple SIDs ending at HECTOR (for each runway heading, named like HECTORxxx) and so on. This is why you can't include "SID's common waypoints" in your FSX flight plan for RC4 for example (when flying in europe). The reason is that the if the winds change from north to south between planning and the flight, the only common waypoint is the STAR exit (everything in between the runway and SID exit will more than likely be completely different). --- In the US, there are quite a few STARs end with vectoring either from the STAR exit or you should expect vectoring before STAR exit. In Europe, vectoring away from the STAR does happen (if traffic allows), but STARs are designed to connect either directly to the approach or approach transition. Why? (AFAIK) To accommodate for continuous descent to save fuel and reduce noise. These are just a few examples that I could come up from the top of my head. "Easy" for a human to understand. Not so easy for offline ATC to understand and handle.

To quote ProATC's forum: Other products (even default ATC) are much better for those kind of flights as ProATC avoids vectoring as much as possible (safest way to keep you from flying into terrain).

Thank for pointing this out. For some reason, it felt like FAA to me. Will have to test a see what I have missed.

As mentioned, "must" is very subjective. This is why I like the idea behind the original post. Here is an example list (based on my experience): 1) Generates it's own ATIS: - RC4: yes - VOX ATC: yes - ProATC: no 2) Assigns real world SIDs/STARs based on AIRAC (from Navigraph/Aerosoft): - RC4: no - VOX ATC: yes - ProATC: yes 3) Assigns real world transition levels automatically based on AIRAC (from Navigraph/Aerosoft): - RC4: no (can be manually entered) - VOX ATC: no - ProATC: yes 4) Uses FAA phraseology when flying in the US and uses ICAO phraseology when flying in Europe: - RC4: no (uses FAA globally) - VOX ATC: no - ProATC: no I'm willing to say, that out of the 4 questions, we would be hard pressed to find consensus what is "must". It also shows that there isn't an ATC product that has all the corners covered. Hence the original question (at least I guess so).

The question would be: "Does the ATC program generate it's own ATIS". If ATIS is generated externally, there is no way to link the ATIS information designator. This reminds me with to other problem about forming YES/NO answers. Things that other people do not even pay attention to, are deal breakers for others.

I like the idea. However, I would like to add the following. There should/could be a split between US and Europe/rest of the world. The reason I'm saying this is that I went through the list and answering to myself: - "Works in the US, but not in Europe, because the SID/STAR handling is completely opposite. (different SID/STAR based on weather, SID/STAR not include in the flight plan, ...)" - "This might be common in US, but not in Europe" - "Are terrain NOTAMs a real thing or sim related workaround?" - "AIRAC cycles by Richard? Could this be AIRAC from Navigraph or Aerosoft?" and so on. So what I'm saying is that I like the idea behind the post, but final YES/NO answer to a questions is different based on where you fly.

I haven't flown the real MD-11, but got to try the full motion MD-11 simulator at Finnair's flight academy. On takeoff, the PMDG version and the full sim acted completely different. With the PMDG version, I had gotten into a habit of pushing the nose nose down to steady the climb (after positive rate of climb). With the full motion, I did the same and almost dropped back to runway and got told off by the instructor. The weights and controls were of course different, but they felt like two different aircraft on takeoff. The landing on the other hand felt oddly similar.

I have bit of a different view. Offline ATC can help simmer to learn more about their aircraft before they fly online. Let's take some recurring "bug reports" from offline ATC forum: 1) "ATC wants me to fly AWAY from the airport on the approach. What gives!?!" Complaint caused by the fact, that some simmers haven't flown approaches that require you to execute a procedure turn. By using the default ATC, people get so used to getting vectors from the enroute exit to the ILS. 2) "I flew directly from the STAR exit to the FAF, but ATC told me I was flying in the wrong direction. I want my money back!" This kind of reports come up, because simmers listen which STAR and approach to fly, but sometimes forget to listen, which approach transition they need to fly. 3) "ATC told me to start descending before my aircraft's TOD. And don't tell me I'm wrong, PMDG knows how to calculate TOD. This ATC program is so broken!" I don't have any idea where this comes from, but it seems to be a common misconception, that ATC would know where the aircraft's calculated TOD is at any given time. Also early descent seem to be totally unacceptable. The other variant would be "I started descending when my aircraft told me to reset the MCP altitude, but ATC told me to climb back to my cruise altitude. Please fix!". Some simmer seem to think that the box is always correct and ATC should just read out loud what is in the box (even if they have yet to programmed in the STAR and arrival, that would push the TOD further down the route). Based on this, my view is that there are simisms that offline ATC helps to fix. Helped me a lot when I was starting simming.

Please post here: http://pointsoftware.de/forum

For all things ProATC, please visit post here: http://www.pointsoftware.de/forum

It dependens. If you use a program called AI Controller, then you can have the AI aircraft follow SIDs and STARs.

This is interesting. The PIN errors started happening after users started installing the latest NGX version. This is the main reason, I haven't updated to the latest NGX version. No PIN errors with the old version.

Please go the official support forum a do a search with DSound.dll. This will give you answers for the most common causes. I you are still getting crashes, please post a log. I'm running ProATC networked with a 12 year old laptop without crashes (or the need for JetBoost).

I have identical setup going and couldn't be happier (maybe even happier when Air Hauler 2 comes out)!

Hello! I have yet to upgrade to NGX reboot, but these are the settings I have been happy with. I let ProATC's co-pilot handle radios, contact controllers and confirm instructions. FS2Crew for everything else:

After all these years, the MD-11 is still my favourite PMDG aircraft.

Since Mike reported the issue, other ProATC beta team members have tried to reproduce the issue (me including). But... the only time one of us (except Mike) got the PIN ERROR was, when he was not using ProATC with the NGX. When it happened, he was doing circuits at ESSA with nothing other than NGX running. As far as I know, PMDG already has a few tickets on the subject. As noted before, ProATC users started reporting this only after they had installed the latest version of the NGX. On the first page of this thread, you can also see mention of this happening without the use of ProATC. I'm running old version of the NXG on FSX and haven't been able to get this error on my system.

You did understand, who I quoted? I was quoting VATSIM's vPilot developer. So both IVAO and VATSIM developer think that you shouldn't use the IVAO files on VATSIM.

FWIW 6 months ago, vPilot dropped IVAO model matching rules due to the fact, that vPilot code was used outside VATSIM network: https://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?f=132&t=68627 "Lastly, I encourage every vPilot user to delete the IVAO model matching rules from your vPilot configuration and respect the wishes (and user agreement) of the IVAO model set developers. "

References please as this is quite a hard argument.