Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RALF9636

  1. Absolutely. This is a common misconception of PF3 here an Avsim. You don't need to input any data of a STAR at all. Just choose the last waypoint at which PF3 should clear you for the approach and then fly whatever route you want to the final. Nothing cumbersome about that at all. It never takes me more than one or two minutes to set PF3 up for my next flight. Of course if you want ATC to guide you through the STAR from waypoint to waypoint and altitude constraint to altitude constraint, then you have to input these data. But - as far as I know - that would be totally unrealistic. IRL ATC just clears you to fly a STAR and expects you to do so according to the charts without any further intervention.
  2. That's why I use Multi Crew Experience instead. Works fine with the Fenix (though it is still work in progress).
  3. I would also prefer if PF3 would assign a STAR "on the fly". It is correct, that it doesn't unfortunately. But it is not correct that you have to pick a STAR before the flight. You can set your last waypoint in PF3 to be the one before the STARs begin and PF3 will then assign you a runway according to the wind and let you fly any STAR you want (or a direct course or whatever you want). You can then ask for landing clearance when established on final.
  4. That only happens with a certain virtual copilot setting in PF3 (automatic handling of ATC), which you shouldn't use on the ground. I never get this with my settings.
  5. Absolutely. I use PF3 as well and being part of their Beta Team I know how arduous it is to keep improving it. There are so many features lacking from PF3 I would like to have in an ATC app, still for me PF3 is the best available solution (and from what I've seen and read about ProATC, PF3 still is - at least for me).
  6. Not to belittle the honorable efforts of all these mostly single developers trying to bring up an ATC solution probably in their spare time, but what I wish to see is either a professional company on the proficiency level of Fenix or a highly ambitious group of freeware/open source developers on the level of Flybywire making an ATC product. Such a group would have to consist of not only flightsim enthusiasts and highly skilled software developers including AI speech experts, but also real world pilots and ATC controllers from all over the world to ensure the accuracy of ATC-procedures including the many regional differences. A single developer is just not up to the task, no matter how talented or dedicated he is. Creating a state-of-the-art ATC solution that meets the professionalism standards of MSFS and addon aircraft like the Fenix is a much too complex task for a single person. There is a reason why Asobo still did not seriously look after the ATC-system - it is just a massive task. After all these years we still haven't seen any serious ATC attempt by a larger company, probably because the expected sales numbers would not have justified the necessary massive efforts. I just hope this will change these days, given the much larger user base of MSFS compared to earlier sims. Hopefully someday a real state-of-the-art ATC solution will be available for MSFS.
  7. If you make this verbal notification optional, it will please everybody. I use other apps with voice recognition alongside MCE and so have to mute and unmute speech recognition in MCE regularly. To me the new verbal notification is quite disturbing. For example there are some new ATC apps available now which are not (yet?) integrated into MCE. So if you want to use these ATC apps with voice recognition you have to mute and unmute MCE for every ATC transmission. Which can easily be done by assigning the same button as PTT for the ATC app and mute key for MCE. But the verbal notification of MCE gets disturbing. So please add an option to make MCE silently mute and unmute - like it has been before.
  8. In the latest version I hear MCE saying "speech off" resp. "listening" when pressing the NumLock mute key. I never heard that before and I'd like to turn off these verbal messages again. Is there a line I could add to the mce.ini to achieve that?
  9. Just to let you know it didn't happen again in my last sessions after updating to 31.15.3.
  10. Hi, I see the same issue now in 31.15.1 in MSFS. The lower line in PSXT does not switch from the origin airport and there is no traffic when I arrive at the destination airport - unless I restart PSXT. Is there a bug again or maybe something wrong with my setup? Regards Ralf
  11. Works fine now, thanks! Another thing I noticed: Whenever an engine is started, MCE reports that we've lost the Nav radio.
  12. I noticed that MCE seems not to be able to read the flap setting from the Fenix. MCE always adds the commanded flaps to the current setting. For example when flaps are already set to 1 and you call "flaps 2", MCE sets flaps 3. I seem to remember that problem temporarily had existed before with the FBW as well, but was solved.
  13. Me neither. I only use it with floatplanes as a workaround.
  14. One of the main factors contributing to this problem is the overdone windvaning effect in MSFS which aggressively turns your floatplane into the (even only light) wind. Turning on Auto-Rudder in the Assistance Options improves the steerability of float planes on the water a lot, because it disables all wind effects while on the ground/water.
  15. For the first time since using Ezdok in P3D, today I felt the intuitive need to grab my (non existing) seatbelt to tighten it. Thanks FSR!
  16. I agree. And I also remember these same discussions about Ezdok where people did not understand this concept. Actually flying the default C172 through some turbulence and the movement of the cabin and the wings looks exactly like I expect it to do.
  17. Great news about the Beaver! I wondered why Milviz have been so silent.
  18. Great to hear the Fenix will be supported next. Since there are scripts available for most of the functions of the Fenix to use with AAO / Streamdeck on flightsim.to I guess it would be pretty much forward for you as well. Or is that a misassumption?
  19. Well, that thread is mostly about 6 $. So nothing wrong with opening a new one for the product itself. 🙂 And the product is a game changer!
  20. Great to have Anchorage and Lake Hood back! Now, @Milviz, where is the Beaver? 😉
  21. All your changes are automatically saved to your aircraft's profile immediately. You don't need to make a cloud share.
  22. This argumentation, we should not be satisfied with 30 FPS in 2022, it was fine in 2005 with FSX but hey, welcome to 2022, is kind of weird. How can 30 FPS have been fine in 2005, but be bad in 2022? Have human eyes and brain deteriorated in the last 17 years so they are not able to build the illusion of a smooth movement anymore? (And no matter how high the FPS are, it is still an illusion. The eyes just see still pictures - it is the brain that creates the perception of a fluid motion.) Here is a proposal for those who are not satisfied with 30 FPS: Exclusively use 30 FPS for six weeks. Never use higher than 30 FPS for these six weeks.Then after these six weeks let us know if you are still unsatisfied with 30 FPS. The brain can adapt to 30 FPS and create a smooth experience out of it. It just unlearns it when you keep using higher FPS. So you will then notice the difference when you get back to 30 FPS. But your brain can learn it again. Just give it a chance. Your reward are much higher graphics settings in the sim. I am not talking about VR here, that might be a different story. And of course there are individual differences. Some people need more training with 30 FPS than others to be able to adapt. And most probably there are even people who only need 20 FPS to have their brain create a smooth experience.
  23. You can try if increasing the deadzones of your controllers helps.
  24. Best thing about PSXT is that aircraft use the correct runways and taxiways and are separated realistically (because it is real).
  25. I wonder if it is just a coincidence that it seems those people who complain about the Fenix' performance are the same who claim 30 FPS are not enough. Maybe the Fenix does not run too well on systems that are on the edge already trying to squeeze out every possible FPS. Whereas the Fenix is fine on systems with some headroom, because users are happy with their locked 30 FPS and never look at their FPS at all. I am one of the latter and on my not up to date system (8700K, 1080TI) the Fenix performs significantly better than the FBW and is perfectly smooth - even if FPS temporarily drop below 30 in demanding situations.
  • Create New...