FSX-MS most liked ATC software

[abh_jc_03 0]

I am wondering what is the most enjoyable ATC addon? I would like a program that I can speak to and doesn't sound too robotic.

[Capt Speirs 52]

I am wondering what is the most enjoyable ATC addon? I would like a program that I can speak to and doesn't sound too robotic.

If you search this forum, you will find an exhausting amount of opinion on this subject. 

[Kuragiman 227]

Yep.  This is a full highly opinionated topic.    IF you ask me I will tell you VoxATC.  The next guy will say Radar Contact and the next will say PFE and so on and so forth.   If they have demos, try them and see which one you like the best.   They each have their strengths and weakness and some have more strengths than weakness but it's all opinion.   You could do market research to see which one has sold the most copies and go with that one if you want 'The Best' according to sales.  

[Darcy 63]

ProATC/X .  Love it and have not looked back.  Used to use Radar Contact.

 

Darcy

[wims80 121]

Vatsim crushes the market IMO. No atc addon gets close to the realism and immersion you get from Vatsim

[Darcy 63]

Only problem with vatsim no controllers when you need one and very little traffic.  I agree the realism is great when controllers on.

 

Darcy

[vcarlo 529]

Gotta go with WIMS80...

 

Best software is vPilot (client to connect to VATSIM using P3D)  

 

Want lots of controllers available ?  Just follow the EVENT announcements... you should be able to find lots of controllers doing a great job !! 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,924]

ProATC/X .  Love it and have not looked back.  Used to use Radar Contact.

 

Darcy

 

Does ProATC-X still refer to "British Airways" rather than "Speedbird"?

 

And if you level off instead of climbing to your instructed flight level will it chastise you? Last time I tried it on a friend's computer it didn't. An ATC program should monitor what you do - not just issue blind instructions. Radar Contact passes both those tests.

 

You do know the instructions in ProATC-X do not adhere to ICAO / FAA standards don't you?

[wanabflyer 53]

VOXATC for me. Want ATC you can talk to? VOXATC's got it. Want to push buttons? VOXATC's got it. Want procedural correctness? VOXATC's got it. Want a fully functional demo for 7 days to see for yourself? VOXATC's got it.

 

Yes it's got some room for improvement, but the dev is actively working in this area with pretty regular version updates.

[tf51d 284]

Proflight Emulator Deluxe + Voice pack (PFE) for me!! Add MCE to it and you have voice control as well, not to mention the virtual first officer features it has.

[Jarkko 59]

Does ProATC-X still refer to "British Airways" rather than "Speedbird"?

 

And if you level off instead of climbing to your instructed flight level will it chastise you? Last time I tried it on a friend's computer it didn't. An ATC program should monitor what you do - not just issue blind instructions. Radar Contact passes both those tests.

 

You do know the instructions in ProATC-X do not adhere to ICAO / FAA standards don't you?

 

FWIW this isn't the first time you have asked the same questions, so here goes:

 

Yes, Still British Airways. The people who recorded the voice sets said, British Airways, when they should have said Speedbird. As the callsings are not computer generated, there is no way to fix this without re-recording the broken voice sets.

 

---

 

Does Radar Contact still scream at you if you follow the SID correctly (for example at EDDV anything that connects to WRB VOR)? An ATC program should know that you are flying exactly on the SID - not just scream at you randomly.

 

Does RC it still vector you into a mountain if you forget to request something other that vectors?

 

Does RC still require you to be at an arbitrary altitude within 40nm (or was it 10nm)? You know that something like this is almost never used (at least in Europe), don't you.

 

How complete were the taxi instructions in RC?

 

Without those problems, I would probably still be using RC.

 

---

 

I personally prefer to fly with ATC programs, where you have to import the same AIRAC, that your aircraft is using. That way, both you and ATC are following the same waypoints and altitude restrictions. So for me, VoxATC and ProATC are the ones that have stood the test of time (out of the four I have used)

 

Short answer: A perfect ATC program doesn't exist yet., but there are a lot of good ones out there. You just have to find the one, that has the features you need and not too many features you can't live without.

[tf51d 284]

 

 

Yes, Still British Airways. The people who recorded the voice sets said, British Airways, when they should have said Speedbird. As the callsings are not computer generated, there is no way to fix this without re-recording the broken voice sets.

 

That's one of ProATC's main problems. They provided a utility for the users themselves to create voice packs of their own that were made available to all users. On paper this sounds like  great thing, but in practice you lose quality control. Now for example you may have one voice give you the proper callsign and another give you the ICAO code. I've also seen cases for example of instead of say Delta 123 you get Delta Airlines 123 and not consistently on all voices.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,924]

FWIW this isn't the first time you have asked the same questions, so here goes again: Yes, Still British Airways. The people who recorded the voice sets said, British Airways, when they should have said Speedbird. As the callsings are not computer generated, there is no way to fix this without re-recording the broken voice sets.

 

 

I only asked in case things had changed since I last asked. Are there any plans to ask those people to re-record Speedbird and any other incorrect callsigns etc?

 

Does Radar Contact still scream at you if you follow the SID correctly (for example at EDDV anything that connects to WRB VOR)? An ATC program should know that you are flying exactly on the SID - not just scream at you randomly.

 

Radar Contact does not 'scream at you'. If you include the SID waypoints in your plan you have to pass within 1 mile of them. Not unreasonable. If you don't include them then you can configure RC so that it ignores your heading until you reach the first waypoint or 30DME from departure - whichever occurs first. It still monitors your altitude of course.

 

Does RC it still vector you into a mountain if you forget to request something other that vectors? Does RC still require you to be at an arbitrary altitude within 40nm (or was it 10nm)? You know that something like this is almost never used (at least in Europe), don't you.... How complete were the taxi instructions in RC?

 

 

Correct planning should ensure you have selected NOTAMS for the arrival airport where appropriate. If you have then you will be given instructions to descend "if able". You don't get chastised if you stay higher.

 

The requirement is FL120 / 12000ft for a far-side approach or FL110 / 11000ft for a near-side. You are expected to be at that altitude 40DME from arrival airport. Whether that adheres to real world rules I have no idea. It would be impracticable to include code for each authority.

 

Taxi instructions were working in the beta version of RCv5 but JD pulled the plug. In v4 you are expected to find your own way to the departure runway. Not difficult with the plethora of moving maps etc. these days.

 

Without those problems, I would probably still be using RC.

 

 

If the lack of proper enunciated instructions doesn't bother you then fine. For others considering an ATC package that might be more important.

 

 

I personally prefer to fly with ATC programs, where you have to import the same AIRAC, that your aircraft is using. That way, both you and ATC are following the same waypoints and altitude restrictions. So for me, VoxATC and ProATC are the ones that have stood the test of time (out of the four I have used)

 

 

RC4 doesn't need to know about AIRAC data. Each waypoint you include in a FS flight plan has a latitude and longitude. That's all RC4 needs. So it doesn't require the expense of keeping AIRAC data up to date.

[Jarkko 59]

Radar Contact does not 'scream at you'. If you include the SID waypoints in your plan you have to pass within 1 mile of them. Not unreasonable. If you don't include them then you can configure RC so that it ignores your heading until you reach the first waypoint or 30DME from departure - whichever occurs first. It still monitors your altitude of course.

 

 

Here is the old thread: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/355728-flying-long-sids/  (and yes that is my old account that become locked, when twitter logging no longer worked)

 

In my example, the SID ends 47nm away from the airport, RC starts to tell you that you are off your assigned course (after you are 30nm away from the airport), even though you are still flying the SID correctly. After the flight, RC will critic you even though you did a perfect flight.

 

I tried using the NOTAMS and other options, but it just didn't feel right for me. (FWIW EDDV is still my hub in AirHauler and most of my flights start there).

 

 

It would be impracticable to include code for each authority.

 

 

But that is what ProATC is doing, It knows all the main points automatically from the AIRAC: transition levels, SID/STAR altitude and speed restrictions, G/S intercept altitudes, procedure turns, ...

 

 

In v4 you are expected to find your own way to the departure runway. Not difficult with the plethora of moving maps etc. these days.

 

 

You prefer flight monitoring from ATC. I prefer ATC instructions from gate to gate. That's why it's good that we have choices available.

 

 

If the lack of proper enunciated instructions doesn't bother you then fine.

 

 

For proper procedures and instructions, I will use VoxATC. Almost perfect, especially when flying in Europe (save the free robotic voices).

 

 

RC4 doesn't need to know about AIRAC data. Each waypoint you include in a FS flight plan has a latitude and longitude. That's all RC4 needs.

 

 

As RC4 doesn't know how to assign you the correct SID/STAR (and approaches), it will fly you into a mountain if you let it vector you around freely. The added benefit of using AIRAC, is that you can just copy/paste a real world flight plan from flightaware or eurofpl and off you go. No need to generate FSX flight plans.

 

Horses for courses.

 

EDIT:

 

What I should have mentioned, is that ProATC and VoxATC struggle a bit, when flying in the US. ProATC has challenges with SIDs ending with vectors and VoxATC tends to do radio ping-pong on those flights.

 

RC4 does a consistent job in the US, but has a few challenges in Europe. It might not be a surprise, that two of the three are influenced by people in Europe and one by people in the US.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Jarkko

[Ray Proudfoot 8,924]

Here is the old thread: http://forum.avsim.n...ying-long-sids/ ...In my example, the SID ends 47nm away from the airport, RC starts to tell you that you are off your assigned course (after you are 30nm away from the airport), even though you are still flying the SID correctly. After the flight, RC will critic you even though you did a perfect flight.

 

You had two options. 1) Request Direct To once 30 miles out or 2) include the SID waypoints in your plan.

 

But that is what ProATC is doing, It knows all the main points automatically from the AIRAC: transition levels, SID/STAR altitude and speed restrictions, G/S intercept altitudes, procedure turns, ...

 

Great. Hopefully wherever in the world you fly they will all work.

 

 

You prefer flight monitoring from ATC. I prefer ATC instructions from gate to gate. That's why it's good that we have choices available... For proper procedures and instructions, I will use VoxATC. Almost perfect, especially when flying in Europe (save the free robotic voices).

Indeed. JD recognised the need for this but with v5 scrapped it never saw the light of day. RCv4 remains a very good and stable program in most other respects.

Radar Contact doesn't have 'robotic voices'. They are recording of real people's voices.

 

 

RC4 doesn't know how to assign you the correct SID/STAR (and approaches), it will fly you into a mountain if you let it vector you around freely. The added benefit of using AIRAC, is that you can just copy/paste a real world flight plan from flightaware or eurofpl and off you go. No need to generate FSX flight plans.

 

It knows nothing of SIDs / STARs. You include them in your plan or use different options in RC. And you will only be flown into a mountain if you use the program incorrectly. Not sure how many times I need to say that!

 

 

Horses for courses.

 

Indeed. You never came back to me about should you level off instead of climbing to your instructed flight level. Does ProATC-X not monitor your flying?